UNASSIGNED: The role of variceal embolization (VE) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for preventing gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the incidence of variceal rebleeding, shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death between patients treated with TIPS alone and those treated with TIPS in combination with VE.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for all studies comparing the incidence of complications between TIPS alone and TIPS with VE. The primary outcome was variceal rebleeding. Secondary outcomes include shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of stent (covered vs. bare metal). The random-effects model was used to calculate the relative risk (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of outcome. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
UNASSIGNED: Eleven studies with a total of 1,075 patients were included (597: TIPS alone and 478: TIPS plus VE). Compared to the TIPS alone, the TIPS with VE had a significantly lower incidence of variceal rebleeding (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 - 0.81, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results in covered stents (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 - 0.86, P = 0.008) but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the subgroup analysis of bare stents and combined stents. There was no significant difference in the risk of encephalopathy (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66 - 1.06, P = 0.13), shunt dysfunction (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.19, P = 0.40), and death (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.65 - 1.17, P = 0.34). There were similarly no differences in these secondary outcomes between groups when stratified according to type of stent.
UNASSIGNED: Adding VE to TIPS reduced the incidence of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. However, the benefit was observed with covered stents only. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

UNASSIGNED: Arteriovenous malformations (AVM) are developmental vascular malformations consisting of abnormal arteriovenous shunts surrounding a central nidus. These lesions are relatively uncommon, comprising just 7% of all benign soft-tissue masses. Most AVMs occur in the brain, neck, pelvis, and lower extremity and rarely manifest in the foot. When they do form in the foot, non-specific pain and the absence of clinical features contribute to the high rate of misdiagnosis on initial presentation. Although surgical excision combined with embolotherapy has emerged as the preferred treatment for large AVM, controversy exists over the best treatment for small lesions in the foot.
UNASSIGNED: A 36-year-old Afro-Caribbean man was referred to the clinic with a 2-year history of increasing pain in his forefoot, affecting his ability to stand or walk comfortably. There was no history of trauma, and despite changing his footwear, the patient continued to have significant pain. Clinical examination was unremarkable except for mild tenderness over the dorsum of his forefoot, and radiographs were normal. A magnetic resonance scan reported an intermetatarsal vascular mass but could not exclude malignancy. Surgical exploration and en bloc excision confirmed the mass to be an AVM. One year post-surgery, the patient remains pain-free with no evidence of recurrence.
UNASSIGNED: The rarity of AVM in the foot, combined with normal radiographs and non-specific clinical signs, contributes to the long delay in diagnosing and treating these lesions. Surgeons should have a low threshold for obtaining magnetic resonance imaging in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. En bloc surgical excision is an option for treating small suitably located lesions in the foot.

BACKGROUND: Acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleedings (GIBs) are pathological conditions associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Embolization without angiographic evidence of contrast media extravasation is proposed as an effective procedure in patients with clinical and/or laboratory signs of bleeding. The purpose of this systematic review is to define common clinical practice and clinical and technical outcomes of blind and preventive embolization for upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding.
METHODS: Through the PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar database, an extensive search was performed in the fields of empiric and preventive embolization for the treatment of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleedings (UGIB and LGIB). Inclusion criteria were: articles in English for which it has been possible to access the entire content; adults patients treated with empiric or blind transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for UGIB and/or LGIB. Only studies that analysed clinical and technical success rate of blind and empiric TAE for UGIB and/or LGIB were considered for our research. Exclusion criteria were: recurrent articles from the same authors, articles written in other languages, those in which the entire content could not be accessed and that articles were not consistent to the purposes of our research. We collected pooled data on 1019 patients from 32 separate articles selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 22 studies focused on UGIB (total 773 patients), one articles focused on LGIB (total 6 patients) and 9 studies enrolled patients with both UGIB and LGIB (total 240 patients). Technical success rate varied from 62% to 100%, with a mean value of 97.7%; clinical success rate varied from 51% to 100% with a mean value of 80%. The total number of complications was 57 events out of 1019 procedures analysed.
CONCLUSIONS: TAE is an effective procedure in the treatment of UGIB patients in which angiography does not demonstrate direct sign of ongoing bleeding. The attitude in the treatment of LGIBs must be more prudent in relation to poor vascular anastomoses and the high risk of intestinal ischemia. Blind and preventive procedures cumulatively present a relatively low risk of complications, compared to a relatively high technical and clinical success.

Osteoarthritis of the knee poses an ever-expanding healthcare challenge worldwide. Current treatments include conservative methods such as weight loss, pharmacological treatments including NSAIDs, and surgical techniques including total knee arthroplasty. Although frequently successful, contraindications and failure of pharmacological agents leave many, especially with mild-moderate disease, without effective treatment. Genicular artery embolization is an interventional radiology technique being developed to fill this treatment gap. For this procedure to become established, the literature must provide evidence of its underlying scientific principles, safety, efficacy and economic viability. Pathological investigation of osteoarthritis reveals that low-level inflammation plays a crucial role in disease development. Joint inflammation stimulates neoangiogenesis and accompanying neuronal growth, with the degree of microvascular invasion being correlated with more severe pain in animal models. These neovessels provide a target for embolization however, the microscopic effects of this intervention are yet to be elucidated. The side effects of GAE have been extensively investigated with no severe adverse events being recorded. Skin discoloration and puncture site hematoma are the most common, occurring in 10%-65% and 0%-17% of patients respectively. The literature also discusses ways to minimize these events. Phase one studies provide promising evidence of efficacy, demonstrating an 80% improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and a mean difference of 36.8 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores at 24-months. These positive signals are also supported by a single randomized control trial. A single study has been completed regarding the cost of GAE, however further work is needed. The GAE literature demonstrates a safe procedure with promising initial evidence of efficacy. Future work should further elucidate the pathology of osteoarthritis and ways in which embolization modifies this process, alongside providing further randomized control evidence that aligns with the recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The future of GAE is exciting!