Letter to the Editor. Perioperative Blood Loss after Preoperative Prostatic Artery Embolization in Patients Undergoing Simple prostatectomy: A propensity Score-Matched Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Carlos Barrera Gutierrez
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Prostatic Artery Embolization ◽  
Perioperative Blood Loss ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Simple Prostatectomy ◽  
Matched Study ◽  
Prostatic Artery

scholarly journals Prostatic Artery Embolization: An Alternative Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (02) ◽  
pp. 091-098
Author(s):  
James F. Pike ◽  
William F. Abel ◽  
Tyler B. Seckel ◽  
Christine M.G. Schammel ◽  
William Flanagan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Prostatic Artery Embolization ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
International Prostatic Symptom Score ◽  
Simple Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostatic Artery

Abstract Purpose Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative for patients with prostates >80 mL and has demonstrated lower morbidity rates. We sought to evaluate PAE at a single tertiary medical center. Methods A retrospective review of all patients who underwent PAE was completed. Demographic, clinicopathologic, procedure, and outcome data were collected to include international prostatic symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) assessments. Results The pre-PAE mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 8.4 ng/mL, mean prostate volume was 146.9 mL (9% >200 mL), and mean postvoid residual (PVR) was 208.2 mL (21.9% 200–300 mL). IPSS mean was 19.8 and QoL was “mostly dissatisfied.” Following PAE, mean PSA was reduced by 3.2 ng/mL (38.1%, p = 0.3014), the mean prostate volume reduction was 59.2 mL (40.3%, n = 19, p < 0.0001), and the average PVR reduction was 150.3 mL (72.2%, n = 27, p = 0.0002). Average IPSS score was also lower (11.9; 60.1%, n = 25, p < 0.0001) and QoL was reduced to “mostly satisfied” (p < 0.0001). Technical success was 100% with 24% minor morbidities. Conclusion PAE is a successful treatment for patients with BPH resulting in large prostates that are not good candidates for simple prostatectomy, providing optimal care with less operative and postoperative complications.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Equipment, Procedure Steps, and Overcoming Technical Challenges

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 100691
Author(s):  
Francisco Cesar Carnevale ◽  
André Moreira de Assis ◽  
Airton Mota Moreira
Keyword(s):  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Prostatic Artery Embolization ◽  
Technical Challenges ◽  
Prostatic Artery

scholarly journals Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) have a Differential Impact on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS): Retrospective Analysis of the Multicentre UK-ROPE (UK Register of Prostate Embolization) Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ganesh Vigneswaran ◽  
Drew Maclean ◽  
Mohammed Hadi ◽  
Benjamin Maher ◽  
Sachin Modi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Transurethral Resection ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Prostatic Artery Embolization ◽  
Voiding Symptoms ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
The Uk ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Prostatic Artery

Abstract Purpose To compare the relative IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) improvement in storage and voiding symptoms between prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Method Retrospective analysis of the UK-ROPE (UK Register of Prostate Embolization) multicentre database was conducted with inclusion of all patients with full IPSS questionnaire score data. The voiding and storage subscore improvement was compared between interventions. Student’s t-test (paired and unpaired) and ANOVA (Analysis of variance) were used to identify significant differences between the groups. Results 146 patients (121 PAE, 25 TURP) were included in the analysis. Storage symptoms were more frequently the most severe symptom (‘storage’ in 75 patients vs ‘voiding’ in 17 patients). Between groups, no significant difference was seen in raw storage subscore improvement (TURP 4.9 vs PAE 4.2; p = 0.34) or voiding subscore improvement (TURP 8.4 vs PAE 6.7; p = 0.1). ANOVA demonstrated a greater proportionate reduction (relative to total IPSS) towards voiding symptoms in the TURP group (27.3% TURP vs 9.9% PAE, p = 0.001). Conclusion Although both TURP and PAE improve voiding symptoms more than storage, a significantly larger proportion of total symptom reduction is due to voiding in the TURP cohort, with PAE providing a more balanced improvement between voiding and storage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document