Different Interventional Embolization Approaches for Splenic Artery Aneurysms: A Retrospective Clinical Study

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2026.03.007

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare post-procedural events (procedure-related complications plus events of uncertain attribution) and outcomes between splenic artery aneurysm (SAA) sac embolization and combined embolization (various combinations of outflow tract, sac, and inflow tract).

Methods

A retrospective study of 53 SAA patients (June 2022–June 2024) was conducted. Patients were divided into sac embolization group (n=25) and combined embolization group (n=28). Baseline data, post-procedural events, and outcomes were compared.

Results

The sac embolization group had significantly lower overall post-procedural events at 3 months and 1 year (P<0.05). No significant difference was found in procedure-related complications (dissection, pancreatitis, splenic infarction) between groups (P>0.05). At 3-month follow-up, no recanalization or rupture occurred in either group. At 1-year follow-up, no abnormalities were seen in the sac embolization group, while one case of partial coil migration occurred in the combined group (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both interventional techniques are safe and effective, with no significant difference in procedure-related complication risk. The difference in overall post-procedural events is mainly attributed to non-procedure-specific events (e.g., deep vein thrombosis, ileus). Technique selection should be individualized based on anatomical conditions

Key words: Splenic artery aneurysm, Embolization therapeutic, Postoperative complications, Treatment outcome, Retrospective studies

Jie Sun, Liang Yang, Chunyan Huang, Yuntao Shi, Yao Liu. Different Interventional Embolization Approaches for Splenic Artery Aneurysms: A Retrospective Clinical Study[J]. Chinese Journal of Interventional Radiology(Electronic Edition), 2026, 14(03): 272-277.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhjrfsxdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2026.03.007

https://zhjrfsxdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2026/V14/I03/272

Figures/Tables 4

项目	瘤腔栓塞组(25例)	联合栓塞组(28例)	统计值	P值
年龄(岁， $x ¯$ ±s)	66±6.97	63.50±7.32	Z=-0.072	0.943
瘤腔大小(cm， $x ¯$ ±s)	2.50±0.31	2.50±0.44	Z=-0.827	0.383
性别[例(%)]
男性	5(20.0)	7(25.0)	χ²=0.188	0.664
女性	20(80.0)	21(75.0)	χ²=0.188	0.664
临床症状[例(%)]
有	3(12.0)	2(7.1)	-	0.658
无	22(88.0)	26(92.3)	-	0.658
基础疾病[例(%)]
有	10(40.0)	10(35.7)	χ²=0.105	0.764
无	15(60.0)	18(64.3)	χ²=0.105	0.764
瘤腔类型[例(%)]
真性	19(76.0)	21(75.0)	χ²=0.007	0.934
假性	6(24.0)	7(25.0)	χ²=0.007	0.934
瘤腔部位[例(%)]
近端型	2(8.0)	3(10.7)	-	0.909
体部型	4(16.0)	3(10.7)
远端型	19(76.0)	22(78.6)

项目	瘤腔栓塞组(25例)	联合栓塞组(28例)	统计值	P值
年龄(岁， $x ¯$ ±s)	66±6.97	63.50±7.32	Z=-0.072	0.943
瘤腔大小(cm， $x ¯$ ±s)	2.50±0.31	2.50±0.44	Z=-0.827	0.383
性别[例(%)]
男性	5(20.0)	7(25.0)	χ²=0.188	0.664
女性	20(80.0)	21(75.0)	χ²=0.188	0.664
临床症状[例(%)]
有	3(12.0)	2(7.1)	-	0.658
无	22(88.0)	26(92.3)	-	0.658
基础疾病[例(%)]
有	10(40.0)	10(35.7)	χ²=0.105	0.764
无	15(60.0)	18(64.3)	χ²=0.105	0.764
瘤腔类型[例(%)]
真性	19(76.0)	21(75.0)	χ²=0.007	0.934
假性	6(24.0)	7(25.0)	χ²=0.007	0.934
瘤腔部位[例(%)]
近端型	2(8.0)	3(10.7)	-	0.909
体部型	4(16.0)	3(10.7)
远端型	19(76.0)	22(78.6)

指标	时间点	SAA瘤腔栓塞组(25例)	SAA联合栓塞组(28例)	P值
栓塞异常/再通/破裂	术后3个月	0	0	1.000
	术后1年	0	1(3.57)	1.000
术式相关并发症	术后3个月	0	3(10.71)	0.239
	术后1年	1(4.00)	5(17.86)	0.197
归因不确定事件	术后3个月	0	3(10.71)	0.239
	术后1年	0	3(10.71)	0.239
总体术后相关事件	术后3个月	0	6(21.43)	0.026
	术后1年	1(4.00)	8(28.57)	0.048

References 19

[1]	Salimi J, Omrani Z, Cheraghali R. Splenic artery aneurysm, case series of seven patients[J]. J Surg Case Rep, 2021, 2021(3): rjab046.
[2]	Hamid HKS, Suliman AEA, Piffaretti G, et al. A systematic review on clinical features and management of true giant splenic artery aneurysms[J]. J Vasc Surg, 2020, 71(3): 1036-1045.e1.
[3]	Lawson GW. Maternal deaths in Australia from ruptured splenic artery aneurysms[J]. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 2022, 62(4): 466-471.
[4]	孙英冬, 刘翀, 韩冰, 等. 脾动脉瘤外科手术与腔内治疗的临床疗效比较[J]. 血管与腔内血管外科杂志, 2022, 8(11): 1289-1293.
[5]	Zuhaili B, Black JH 3rd. The current management of visceral artery aneurysms[J]. Adv Surg, 2021, 55: 57-73.
[6]	刘哲, 于凌, 李宗蔚, 等. 37例内脏真性和假性动脉瘤腔内介入治疗的临床研究[J]. 血管与腔内血管外科杂志, 2025, 11(2): 227-231.
[7]	张鑫, 胡红耀. 复杂脾动脉瘤腔内介入治疗方法及疗效分析[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2024, 33(9): 1000-1005.
[8]	辛世杰. 内脏动脉瘤治疗进展[J]. 中华血管外科杂志, 2023, 8(4): 315-318.
[9]	Stark JC, Eisenberg N, Mafeld S, et al. Assessment of open surgical and endovascular management of true hepatic artery aneurysms over 20 years highlights increased rupture risk in females[J]. J Vasc Surg, 2022, 75(4): 1334-1342. e2.
[10]	夏友传, 殷芳, 胡骥琼, 等. 血管内弹簧圈介入栓塞治疗脾动脉瘤11例[J]. 安徽医药, 2023, 27(11): 2253-2256.
[11]	梅峻豪, 余海洋, 秦立昊, 等. 孤立性肠系膜上动脉夹层发病机制研究[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2023, 32(3): 298-301.
[12]	吴奇, 宋勰, 刘丙强, 等. 直径> 5 cm的真性巨大脾动脉瘤诊治分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(1): 98-100.
[13]	潘曼, 李海燕, 齐戈尧. 动脉粥样硬化患者介入术后服用抗血小板药物的依从性及其影响因素[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2022, 31(9): 917-920.
[14]	蒋德龙, 姜波. 脾动脉瘤开放手术和腔内手术治疗的临床疗效分析[J]. 中华血管外科杂志(中英文), 2024, 9(2): 100-104.
[15]	周升毅, 杨庆, 刘林霞, 等. 介入治疗脾动脉瘤[J]. 中国介入影像与治疗学, 2024, 21(9): 569-571.
[16]	Rossi M, Krokidis M, Kashef E, et al. CIRSE standards of practice for the endovascular treatment of visceral and renal artery aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms[J]. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2023, 47(1): 26-35.
[17]	焦周阳, 马志岭, 连冲, 等. NBCA医用胶联合弹簧圈三明治法栓塞脾动脉瘤17例疗效分析[J]. 郑州大学学报(医学版), 2024, 59(5): 693-697.
[18]	李明晋, 杨涵, 李春华, 等. CTA引导弹簧圈介入栓塞治疗脾动脉瘤的临床疗效[J]. 中国现代普通外科进展, 2023, 26(11): 892-895.
[19]	朱健, 邱信杰, 任杰, 等. 脾动脉瘤个体化治疗方式选择及疗效分析的单中心经验[J]. 中华血管外科杂志, 2023, 8(4): 368-372.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export