Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2016
Neck or groin access for varicocele embolisation: Is it important?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Riede Philipp, McCarthy Eoghan, Cary Rachel, Boardman Phil, Tapping Charles R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Varicocele embolisation is an excellent treatment option for symptomatic scrotal varicosities. The purpose of this study was to assess the current practice of the endovascular treatment of left-sided varicoceles at our institution, to compare the findings to international standards and to identify which access site reduces screening time and radiation dose.
METHODS: All left-sided varicocele embolisations over a 4-year period were identified and analysed with regards to technical success, complications and recurrence rates. The results were analysed with regard to the encountered anatomy on a case-to-case basis to identify anatomical factors influencing the outcome of the procedure.
RESULTS: During the study period 95 primary left-sided varicocele embolisations were performed by two experienced consultants. Five cases had a normal initial venogram (Type 0) and further five had unsuitable anatomy for embolisation. Eighty-three of the remaining 85 attempted embolisations were technically successful (98% technical success rate). The clinical success rate was determined by recurrence, which was documented in five cases (mean follow-up 34.3 month, 6% recurrence rate). Recurrence was associated with more complex local anatomy (Type 3 and Type 4). The overall findings were consistent with international published standards for technical success rate (95-100%) and recurrence rates (1.6-10%). Complication rates were low with extravasation being reported in 4.7% (all self-limiting) and temporary pain in 3.5% of the cases. There was no significant difference in radiation dose/screening time, success or complications when comparing a groin versus neck approach to the embolisation procedure (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Varicocele embolisation is successful with a low complications rate. Neck and groin access are equally successful with no significant difference in screening time.
METHODS: All left-sided varicocele embolisations over a 4-year period were identified and analysed with regards to technical success, complications and recurrence rates. The results were analysed with regard to the encountered anatomy on a case-to-case basis to identify anatomical factors influencing the outcome of the procedure.
RESULTS: During the study period 95 primary left-sided varicocele embolisations were performed by two experienced consultants. Five cases had a normal initial venogram (Type 0) and further five had unsuitable anatomy for embolisation. Eighty-three of the remaining 85 attempted embolisations were technically successful (98% technical success rate). The clinical success rate was determined by recurrence, which was documented in five cases (mean follow-up 34.3 month, 6% recurrence rate). Recurrence was associated with more complex local anatomy (Type 3 and Type 4). The overall findings were consistent with international published standards for technical success rate (95-100%) and recurrence rates (1.6-10%). Complication rates were low with extravasation being reported in 4.7% (all self-limiting) and temporary pain in 3.5% of the cases. There was no significant difference in radiation dose/screening time, success or complications when comparing a groin versus neck approach to the embolisation procedure (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Varicocele embolisation is successful with a low complications rate. Neck and groin access are equally successful with no significant difference in screening time.