Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Nov;62(5):1340-7.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.08.053. Epub 2015 Sep 19.

Consequences of Hypogastric Artery Ligation, Embolization, or Coverage

Affiliations
Review

Consequences of Hypogastric Artery Ligation, Embolization, or Coverage

Gautham Chitragari et al. J Vasc Surg. .

Abstract

Objective: Interruption of the hypogastric artery by ligation, embolization, or coverage frequently results in ischemic complications. The aim of this study was to compare the rate and risk factors for the development of ischemic complications after interruption of the hypogastric artery in obstetrics and gynecology (OBG), vascular surgery, oncology, and trauma patients.

Methods: MEDLINE, Ovid, and Scopus were searched for articles containing data of patients who underwent interruption of the hypogastric artery. Based on the indication, details of the procedure, and complications developed, data were categorized and a systematic review was done to evaluate any significant differences.

Results: A total of 394 patients (median age, 48.5 years) from 124 papers were included in the study; 31% of the study population was male and 69% was female. Indication for interruption was OBG related in 53.3%, vascular surgery related in 25.1%, oncology related in 17.5%, and trauma related in 4.1% of patients. Overall ischemic complication rate was 22.6%, comprising buttock claudication in 12.2%, buttock necrosis in 4.8%, erectile dysfunction in 2.7%, spinal cord ischemia in 4.0%, colonic ischemia in 2.5%, and bladder necrosis in 0.8%. Complications were fewer in patients younger than the median age of 48.5 years (12.8%) compared with those older than the median age (36.3%; P < .01), women compared with men (13.1% vs 41.7%; P < .01), OBG patients compared with vascular surgery patients (9.5% vs 37.4%; P < .01), patients after ligation compared with embolization (9.4% vs 31.0%; P < .01), and proximal interruption compared with distal interruption (19.6% vs 51.4%; P < .01). No significant difference in complications was seen after bilateral interruption compared with unilateral interruption (20.6% vs 27.1%; P > .05). Similarly, no significant difference in complication rate was seen with the type of embolization material used. Among OBG patients, ligations resulted in fewer complications compared with embolization (4.1% vs 16.7%; P < .01). Among vascular surgery patients, bilateral embolization resulted in a higher rate of complications compared with bilateral ligation (83.3% vs 30.5%; P < .01). Among oncology patients, fewer complications were seen after proximal interruption compared with distal interruption (25.5% vs 75%; P = .01). No significant differences in outcome were seen with regard to gender, laterality, and material used for embolization when patients were compared within each specialty.

Conclusions: Interruption of the hypogastric artery is relatively safe in young and OBG patients compared with vascular surgery and oncology patients. Ligation of the hypogastric arteries is preferred to embolization, and proximal embolization should be preferred to distal embolization to decrease the risk of ischemic complications. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample size are needed to definitively elucidate clear risk factors for development of complications after hypogastric artery interruption.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 5 articles

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback