Search

Trauma accounts for a third of the deaths in Western countries, exceeded only by cardiovascular disease and cancer. The high risk of massive bleeding, which depends not only on the type of fractures, but also on the severity of any associated parenchymal injuries, makes pelvic fractures one of the most life-threatening skeletal injuries, with a high mortality rate. Therefore, pelvic trauma represents an important condition to correctly and early recognize, manage, and treat. For this reason, a multidisciplinary approach involving trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, emergency room physicians and interventional radiologists is needed to promptly manage the resuscitation of pelvic trauma patients and ensure the best outcomes, both in terms of time and costs. Over the years, the role of interventional radiology in the management of patient bleeding due to pelvic trauma has been increasing. However, the current guidelines on the management of these patients do not adequately reflect or address the varied nature of injuries faced by the interventional radiologist. In fact, in the therapeutic algorithm of these patients, after the word “ANGIO”, there are no reports on the different possibilities that an interventional radiologist has to face during the procedure. Furthermore, variations exist in the techniques and materials for performing angioembolization in bleeding patients with pelvic trauma. Due to these differences, the outcomes differ among different published series. This article has the aim to review the recent literature on optimal imaging assessment and management of pelvic trauma, defining the role of the interventional radiologist within the multidisciplinary team, suggesting the introduction of common and unequivocal terminology in every step of the angiographic procedure. Moreover, according to these suggestions, the present paper tries to expand the previously drafted algorithm exploring the role of the interventional radiologist in pelvic trauma, especially given the multidisciplinary setting.

Aim To describe a 3 years experience of peripheral arterial embolization with Micro Vascular Plug (MVP) (Medtronic, USA). Materials and methods The following parameters were investigated: type of vascular injury, anticoagulation therapy at time of procedure, anatomical district, caliper of the target artery, course of the landing zone, additional embolics, technical and clinical success, device related clinical complications. Technical success was defined as complete embolization without deployment of additional embolics after MVP release. Primary clinical success was considered as hemodynamic stability in emergency setting and resolution of the underlying vascular pathology in elective cases; secondary clinical success was considered clinical success after a second embolization session. Results 116 MVP have been released in 104 patients (67 males and 37 females; mean age 61.3 years). The pullback release technique was adopted in each case. 85 patients were treated in emergent settings while in 19 patients the procedure was scheduled. The overall technical success was 75%. Primary clinical success was 96.1%, secondary clinical success 3% and clinical failure 0.9%. No statistical differences in terms of effectiveness were observed among patients assuming anticoagulation (p-value = 0.6). A straight and longer landing zone were statistically associated with higher technical success compared to curved and shorter ones, (p-values Conclusion MVP is a safe and effective embolic agent. While eventual concomitant anticoagulation therapy did not influence the technical outcome, straight course and length of the landing zone are essential parameters to evaluate before deployment.