The impacts of different embolization techniques on splenic artery embolization for blunt splenic injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 5 Comparisons of clinical outcomes between proximal vs distal and combined embolization in 1st and 2nd study sets

Outcome	Study set	Location	Percentage (%)	P value	OR (95% CI)
Success rate	1st	P vs D	91.4 (444/486) vs 87.7 (213/243)	0.11^a	1.49 (0.91–2.45)
	1st	P vs P + D	91.4 (444/486) vs 86.4 (38/44)	0.27^a	1.67 (0.67–4.18)
	2nd	P vs D	85.0 (122/142) vs 82.3 (108/131)	0.52^a	1.28 (0.61–2.67)
	2nd	P vs P + D	86.7 (104/120) vs 72.2 (13/18)	0.11^a	2.56 (0.81–8.05)
Severe complication	1st	P vs D	10.7 (50/466) vs 30.7 (67/218)	<0.01^a	0.27 (0.18–0.41)
	1st	P vs P + D	10.7 (50/466) vs 35.6 (16/45)	<0.01^a	0.22 (0.11–0.43)
	2nd	P vs D	18.2 (24/132) vs 28.7 (31/108)	0.05	0.51 (0.26–1.00)
	2nd	P vs P + D	20.2 (23/114) vs 58.8 (10/17)	0.00	0.10 (0.03–0.36)
DC III	1st	P vs D	7.3 (32/438) vs 13.0 (28/216)	0.02^a	0.53 (0.31–0.90)
	1st	P vs P + D	7.3 (32/438) vs 10.3 (4/39)	0.52^b	0.69 (0.23–2.06)
	2nd	P vs D	9.9 (13/131) vs 20.0 (21/105)	0.07	0.49 (0.22–1.06)
	2nd	P vs P + D	10.8 (10/93) vs 23.1 (3/13)	0.16	0.37 (0.09–1.50)

P: Proximal splenic artery embolization; D: Distal splenic artery embolization; P + D: Combination of proximal and distal splenic artery embolization; DC III: Clavien-Dindo classification of morbidity for complication III
^aChi-square
^bFisher’s test