The application of interventional methods in control of blood loss during giant upper extremity tumor resection.
AI interpretation is pending for this paper.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
Not AI summarized yet.
Research significance
Pending deeper interpretation.
Source abstract
BACKGROUND: The purposes of this retrospective study were to determine the efficacy of interventional methods in control of intraoperative blood losses and investigate the perioperative complications. METHODS: The cases of 44 patients in whom a giant upper extremity tumor had been operated between 2008 and 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Of these, 29 patients were treated with interventional methods (Group A) and 15 were treated without (Group B). Group A was further divided based on the intervention methodss: Group C (combination of balloon occlusion and transarterial embolization [TAE], n = 11) and Group D (single TAE, n = 18). Within Group D, patients were categorized based on the timing of TAE relative to surgery into Group E (TAE on the same day as surgery) and Group F (TAE performed days before surgery). We compared demographic features, blood loss, ICU admission rates, and use of vasopressors during surgery. RESULTS: We collected clinical records from 44 patients diagnosed with a giant upper extremity tumor who underwent surgery. Group sizes were as follows: A (29), B (15), C (11), D (18), E (7), and F (11). Tumor volumes in the interventional and non-interventional groups were similar (704.19 ± 812.77 cm³ vs. 1224.53 ± 1414.01 cm³, P = 0.127). Blood plasma transfusion was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group A (425.33 ± 476.20 ml vs. 155.90 ± 269.67 ml, P = 0.021). Although overall blood loss did not significantly differ between Group A and Group B (467.93 ± 302.08 ml vs. 1150 ± 1424.15 ml, P = 0.087), the rate of massive bleeding (defined as blood loss over 1000 ml) was lower in Group A (6.9% vs. 46.47%, P = 0.004). The proportion of minors (patients aged less than 18) in Group C was significantly higher than in Group D (27.7% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.045). The amount of RBC transfusion was also significantly higher in Group C compared to Group D (458.18 ± 292.22 ml vs. 164.44 ± 224.03 ml, P = 0.021). No significant perioperative complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional techniques have been shown to reduce both blood loss and the necessity for blood transfusions in patients with large upper extremity tumors. Furthermore, no significant perioperative complications have been observed.