Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2016
Safety and Efficacy of Occlusion of Large Extra-Prostatic Anastomoses During Prostatic Artery Embolization for Symptomatic BPH.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amouyal Gregory, Chague Pierre, Pellerin Olivier, Pereira Helena, Del Giudice Costantino, Dean Carole, Thiounn Nicolas, Sapoval Marc
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: During PAE, preembolization angiography of the prostatic artery can show large extra-prostatic shunts, at high risk, if embolized, of rectal or penile necrosis. We report our experience with 11 consecutive patients who underwent protective embolization of large extra-prostatic shunts before successful PAE.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We treated 11 consecutive male patients (mean age 67 years), part of a series of 55 consecutive male patients referred for PAE to treat LUTS due to BPH, between December 2013 and January 2015. The procedure involved the exclusion of an extra-prostatic shunt originating from the PA, prior to complete bilateral PAE. We compared the safety and efficacy of the 11 shunt exclusions followed by embolization of the PA to the other 44 basic PAE. Clinical success was defined as a decrease of 25 % or eight points of IPSS, QoL <3 or a one-point decrease, and a Qmax improvement of 25 % or 2.5 mL/s.
RESULTS: We had a 100 % rate of occlusion of the anastomosis. Bilateral embolization of the PA was performed in all patients with no additional time of procedure (p = 0.18), but a significant increase of dose area product (p = 0.03). Distal (PErFecTED) embolization was possible in 64 %. There was no worsening of erectile dysfunction, no rectal or penile necrosis, no immediate or late other clinical complications. Clinical success was 91 % (mean follow-up: 3.5 months), compared to 78 % for the entire PAE group.
CONCLUSION: PAE using the protection technique in case of large extra-prostatic shunts is as safe and effective as basic procedures and does not induce any additional time of procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We treated 11 consecutive male patients (mean age 67 years), part of a series of 55 consecutive male patients referred for PAE to treat LUTS due to BPH, between December 2013 and January 2015. The procedure involved the exclusion of an extra-prostatic shunt originating from the PA, prior to complete bilateral PAE. We compared the safety and efficacy of the 11 shunt exclusions followed by embolization of the PA to the other 44 basic PAE. Clinical success was defined as a decrease of 25 % or eight points of IPSS, QoL <3 or a one-point decrease, and a Qmax improvement of 25 % or 2.5 mL/s.
RESULTS: We had a 100 % rate of occlusion of the anastomosis. Bilateral embolization of the PA was performed in all patients with no additional time of procedure (p = 0.18), but a significant increase of dose area product (p = 0.03). Distal (PErFecTED) embolization was possible in 64 %. There was no worsening of erectile dysfunction, no rectal or penile necrosis, no immediate or late other clinical complications. Clinical success was 91 % (mean follow-up: 3.5 months), compared to 78 % for the entire PAE group.
CONCLUSION: PAE using the protection technique in case of large extra-prostatic shunts is as safe and effective as basic procedures and does not induce any additional time of procedure.