Differences and Advantages of Particles versus Liquid Material for Preoperative Intracranial Tumor Embolization: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Abstract

The superiority and usefulness of liquid material over particles for embolization have been a topic of debate due to differences in materials and techniques. This study aimed to identify the complications and outcomes associated with both embolization materials. This retrospective multicenter cohort study included 93 patients from an endovascular treatment registry, treated from January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2022. It included patients who underwent preoperative embolization for meningioma, solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma, and hemangioblastoma. Data for patient characteristics, procedural factors, complications, and outcomes were collected from medical records. A tortuous access route was the only factor independently associated with complications (p = 0.020). Although liquid material was more frequently used for embolization in relatively high-risk conditions, complication rates did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.999). In the liquid material group, the tip of the microcatheter could be guided closer to the tumor (p <0.001) using a distal access catheter and flow-guide microcatheters. The subgroup middle meningeal artery embolization had less operative bleeding in the liquid material group (p <0.001), whereas the particles group exhibited less intraoperative blood loss than the liquid material group (p = 0.006). The vascular tortuosity of the access route was only associated with complications in preoperative tumor embolization. Liquid material and particles showed no difference in complication rates. The use of particles in embolization may reduce intraoperative bleeding, but not in all cases can it be used safely. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the characteristics of both approaches and their relative advantages in clinical practice is essential to opt for the appropriate material according to the case.