Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, Mayo B228, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Oct;24(10):1567-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.06.009. Epub 2013 Aug 6.
To assess the level of occlusion and arterial distribution of calibrated bioresorbable microspheres (BRMS-I and BRMS-II) compared with tris-acryl gelatin microspheres (TGMS) after renal embolization.
Six rabbits underwent renal embolization with 100-300 µm BRMS-I and TGMS; three rabbits received partial occlusion (group 1, n = 3), and three rabbits received total occlusion (group 2, n = 3). Four other rabbits received 100-300 µm BRMS-II (with higher cross-linking density than BRMS-I) in the left kidneys reaching total occlusion (group 3, n = 4). Coronal sections of the kidneys were histologically analyzed. Ease of injection, microsphere deformation, vessel sizes, and arterial distribution were assessed.
The injection of BRMS-I, BRMS-II, and TGMS through microcatheters went smoothly without any clogging. In group 1, BRMS identification was easier than TGMS. In group 2, both BRMS-I and TGMS were observed in all three arterial levels (interlobar, arcuate, and interlobular arteries) without a significant difference (P = .84). BRMS-I were not significantly different from TGMS in the mean diameter of vessels occluded (197 µm ± 23 vs 158 µm ± 21, P = .25) or the microsphere deformation (8.85% ± 0.53% vs 11.80% ± 0.64%, P = .071). In group 3, the arterial distribution of BRMS-II was significantly different from BRMS-I and TGMS (P < .0001).
In occluding arteries, 100-300 µm BRMS-I were not significantly different from 100-300 µm TGMS. Arterial distribution of BRMS can be influenced by their cross-linking density.
评估经皮肾动脉栓塞后,校准的生物可吸收微球(BRMS-I 和 BRMS-II)与三丙烯酰明胶微球(TGMS)的闭塞程度和动脉分布。
6 只兔子接受了 100-300µm 的 BRMS-I 和 TGMS 栓塞治疗;其中 3 只兔子接受部分闭塞(第 1 组,n = 3),3 只兔子接受完全闭塞(第 2 组,n = 3)。另外 4 只兔子接受了左侧肾脏的 100-300µm 的 BRMS-II(交联密度高于 BRMS-I)栓塞治疗,达到完全闭塞(第 3 组,n = 4)。对肾脏的冠状切片进行组织学分析。评估注射的容易程度、微球变形、血管大小和动脉分布。
通过微导管注射 BRMS-I、BRMS-II 和 TGMS 均顺利进行,没有任何堵塞。在第 1 组中,BRMS 的识别比 TGMS 更容易。在第 2 组中,BRMS-I 和 TGMS 均在三个动脉水平(叶间、弓形和小叶间动脉)中观察到,没有显著差异(P =.84)。BRMS-I 在闭塞血管的平均直径(197µm ± 23 比 158µm ± 21,P =.25)或微球变形(8.85% ± 0.53% 比 11.80% ± 0.64%,P =.071)方面与 TGMS 无显著差异。在第 3 组中,BRMS-II 的动脉分布与 BRMS-I 和 TGMS 有显著差异(P <.0001)。
在闭塞动脉方面,100-300µm 的 BRMS-I 与 100-300µm 的 TGMS 没有显著差异。BRMS 的动脉分布可受其交联密度的影响。