Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
5.2
3.3
Journals
JCM
Special Issues
Ablation, Embolization, and Stenting: Current Trends in Interventional Radiology
jcm-logo
Submit to Special Issue Submit Abstract to Special Issue Review for JCM Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

► Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser
share announcement

Ablation, Embolization, and Stenting: Current Trends in Interventional Radiology

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Nuclear Medicine & Radiology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 22 January 2027 | Viewed by 3815

Editor

Dr. Praveen Peddu

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Radiology, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
Interests: interventional radiology; ablation; embolization; stenting; minimally invasive therapy

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Interventional radiology (IR) continues to redefine modern medicine through its minimally invasive, image-guided techniques. Among the most impactful innovations are ablation, embolization, and stenting—cornerstone therapies that have rapidly evolved and now play a central role in managing a wide range of conditions across oncology, vascular disease, and organ dysfunction. This Special Issue, “Ablation, Embolization, and Stenting: Current Trends in Interventional Radiology”, will bring together leading voices in this field to highlight recent advancements, emerging technologies, and evolving clinical indications.

Thermal and non-thermal ablation techniques are now firmly established in oncologic care, offering curative potential for patients ineligible for surgery. Embolization strategies—ranging from transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) to prostate artery embolization—have broadened therapeutic options and improved patient outcomes. Meanwhile, stenting remains indispensable in both elective and emergency settings, with newer designs offering enhanced safety and durability.

By publishing original research, technical updates, and expert reviews, this Special Issue will inform clinical practice, foster innovation, and support the integration of IR into multidisciplinary care. As IR continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, the insights shared in this Special Issue will highlight the technique’s pivotal role in shaping the future of minimally invasive medicine.

Dr. Praveen Peddu
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-anonymized peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • interventional radiology
  • ablation
  • embolization
  • stenting
  • minimally invasive therapy

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

17 pages, 2017 KB  
Article
Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Real-World Experience from a Tertiary Care Centre
by I. Ergenc, M. Guerra Veloz, M. Seager, N. Heraghty, N. Kibriya, J. Green, A. Koundouraki, S. Selemani, K. Menon, R. Miquel, P. Ross, P. Peddu and A. Suddle
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(4), 1582; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15041582 - 17 Feb 2026
Viewed by 1047
Abstract
Background: Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 microspheres has become an established locoregional treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Nevertheless, real-world data on clinical outcomes, including efficacy, safety, and prognostic determinants, remain limited. Methods: This study retrospectively analysed 56 patients with radiologically and/or [...] Read more.
Background: Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 microspheres has become an established locoregional treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Nevertheless, real-world data on clinical outcomes, including efficacy, safety, and prognostic determinants, remain limited. Methods: This study retrospectively analysed 56 patients with radiologically and/or histologically confirmed HCC who underwent SIRT at a tertiary referral centre. Baseline demographics, clinical information, tumour characteristics, procedural data, and follow-up outcomes were recorded. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included radiological response (mRECIST), histological necrosis, and treatment-related toxicity. Prognostic pathways were explored using structural equation modelling (SEM). Results: The mean age at the beginning of SIRT was 65.0 ± 11.6 years; most patients were male (87.5%) and had preserved liver function (mean ALBI −2.9 ± 0.4). BCLC staging distribution was 50% stage A, 32.1% stage B, and 17.9% stage C. According to mRECIST criteria at 6 months, 15.2% achieved complete response (CR), 47.8% partial response (PR), 30% stable disease (SD), and 7% progressive disease (PD). Median OS was 19 months (12–32) for BCLC stage A, 28 months (3–42) for stage B, and 19 months (12–56) for stage C (log-rank p = 0.743). SEM identified diffuse tumour morphology as the most significant predictor of poor prognosis. Radical treatments were performed in 28% of patients, including four liver transplants and ten resections. Adverse events occurred in 11 patients, of which 7 were Clavien–Dindo grade I and 4 were grade II. Conclusions: In this real-world HCC group, SIRT provided durable tumour control and survival with excellent tolerability. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ablation, Embolization, and Stenting: Current Trends in Interventional Radiology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 1525 KB  
Article
Comparative Analysis of Minimally Invasive Therapeutic Strategies for Post-Surgical Pelvic and Retroperitoneal Lymphoceles
by Eser Bulut, Ali Küpeli, Hasan Rıza Aydın, İsmail Taşkent, İbrahim Sibal, Neslihan Merd and Maksude Esra Kadıoğlu
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(4), 1346; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15041346 - 9 Feb 2026
Viewed by 544
Abstract
Background/Objective: Pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphoceles remain a clinically significant complication following pelvic surgery. The optimal minimally invasive management strategy continues to be a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to compare daily catheter drainage and catheter length of stay after [...] Read more.
Background/Objective: Pelvic and retroperitoneal lymphoceles remain a clinically significant complication following pelvic surgery. The optimal minimally invasive management strategy continues to be a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to compare daily catheter drainage and catheter length of stay after percutaneous catheterization in patients with iatrogenic pelvic lymphocele who undergo sclerotherapy alone versus sclerotherapy with intranodal lymphangiography and lymphatic embolization (INL–LE). Methods: A total of 47 patients (55 lymphoceles) who developed symptomatic pelvic or retroperitoneal lymphoceles after oncologic pelvic surgery were retrospectively reviewed between September 2020 and April 2023. They were divided into two groups, one treated with sclerotherapy alone (24 lesions) and the other with sclerotherapy combined with INL–LE (31 lesions). The duration of catheter placement, daily drainage volume during sclerotherapy, lymphocele volume, and catheter dwell time subsequent to lymphatic embolization were compared between the two groups. Results: Of the 55 lymphoceles, 31 were treated with sclerotherapy plus lymphangiography/embolization (INL–LE group), whereas 24 lymphoceles were treated with sclerotherapy alone. Baseline characteristics were not different between the groups. Although initial drainage was higher in the INL–LE group, third-day drainage volume, the number of sclerotherapy sessions, and catheter dwell time were all significantly lower compared with the sclerotherapy group (all p < 0.001). Lesion size positively correlated with drainage volume and catheter duration, whereas embolization negatively correlated with drainage volume, the number of sessions, and catheter duration. Based on multivariate analysis, the addition of INL–LE was independently associated with a significantly shorter catheter dwell time (β = −0.803, p = 0.001). Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort, the addition of lymphatic embolization to sclerotherapy was associated with reduced drainage persistence and a shorter catheter dwell time compared with sclerotherapy alone. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ablation, Embolization, and Stenting: Current Trends in Interventional Radiology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 795 KB  
Article
Radiofrequency vs. Microwave Ablation in Osteoid Osteoma: Comparative Outcomes and Prognostic Factors
by Ismail Karluka, Mustafa Mazıcan, Cagatay Andic, Cagatay Bolgen, Salih Beyaz, Necmettin Turgut, Alaaddin Levent Özgözen and Hakkı Can Ölke
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(21), 7814; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217814 - 3 Nov 2025
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 1711
Abstract
Background: Osteoid osteoma (OO) is a benign osteogenic tumor that causes severe pain despite its small size. Minimally invasive image-guided thermal ablation has replaced surgery as the treatment of choice. While radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered the gold standard, microwave ablation (MWA) [...] Read more.
Background: Osteoid osteoma (OO) is a benign osteogenic tumor that causes severe pain despite its small size. Minimally invasive image-guided thermal ablation has replaced surgery as the treatment of choice. While radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered the gold standard, microwave ablation (MWA) offers faster and more homogeneous heating, though comparative evidence remains limited. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 53 patients with OO treated with RFA (n = 27) or MWA (n = 26) between 2014 and 2023. All procedures were CT-guided. Technical success, clinical success, recurrence, complications, and prognostic factors—including the nidus diameter and eccentricity index—were evaluated over a minimum 24-month follow-up period. Results: Technical success was achieved in all cases. Overall clinical success was 94.3% (96.2% MWA vs. 92.6% RFA, p = 1.000). Two recurrences (4%) occurred, unrelated to device type. One major complication (1.9%, third-degree skin burn after MWA) was noted. Median nidus diameter was 7 mm; lesions ≥10 mm were significantly linked to failure (p = 0.009). Logistic regression identified nidus size as the strongest outcome predictor, with the eccentricity index showing a borderline effect. Conclusions: Both RFA and MWA are safe and effective for OO, with comparable outcomes and low recurrence rates. Treatment selection should prioritize lesion-specific factors—particularly nidus size ≥ 10 mm and geometry—rather than device type. Lesion size (≥10 mm) and geometry—not ablation modality—were the principal determinants of treatment success. Individualized modality selection based on these features may optimize outcomes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ablation, Embolization, and Stenting: Current Trends in Interventional Radiology)
►▼ Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop