Keywords:
Performed at one institution, Not applicable, Retrospective, Haemorrhage, Embolisation, Arterial access, Ultrasound, Fluoroscopy, Catheter arteriography, Kidney, Interventional vascular, Interventional Radiology
Authors:
R. CERDA DE LA TORRE, V. C. Avila , M. A. Bohorquez; Guadalajara, Jalisco/MX
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2020/C-15309
Results
All three patients showed favorable results and bleeding resolution after superselective embolization. None of them needed an urgent nephrectomy.
Patients were monitored one year after embolization. Renal gammagraphy, ultrasound test and a simple phase renal CT (computed tomography) were performed.
Two of them with no relevant morphologic changes at CT and US, with a renal function >90% seen at renal gammagraphy. (FIG. 9, 10, 11, 12)
The other patient showed a giant hematoma (which was not absorbed after the procedure), Causing compression and displacement of the left kidney seen at CT, kidney could not be seen at US. (FIG. 13, 14, 15)
At renal gammagraphy an 80% renal function was obtained.
Hematoma did not show signs of infection, the patient only referred low back pain at pressure with US transducer.
Patients with normal CT and US studies were diagnosed with post biopsy bleeding within the first 6 hours. The patient with the giant hematoma was not diagnosed until 8 hours after performing the biopsy.
Post biopsy results showed that the two patients with no alterations at CT and US control had a diagnosis of diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis.
The patient with the giant hematoma had a biopsy result of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.