Prostatic Arterial Embolization Treating Moderate-to-Severe Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Related to Benign Prostate Hyperplasia: A Meta-Analysis

Prostatic artery embolization for intractable hematuria in patients with unregulated coagulation parameters: three case reports

INTRODUCTION

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is a prevalent disease that could be responsible of severe intractable hematuria requiring invasive surgical management.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report three high-risk cases presented with intractable hematuria of prostatic origin with high medical co-morbidities treated safely and effectively by prostatic artery embolization with favorable outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-surgical, anticoagulated patients, prostatic artery embolization represents a safe and effective intervention for the treatment of intractable hematuria related to benign prostatic hyperplasia.

[Minimally invasive treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia : The German S2e guideline 2023-part 4]

BACKGROUND

Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive for benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) are one of the most frequent diseases in men and can have a significant impact on quality of life. Instrumental therapies are common, and many patients seek minimally invasive treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

Presentation and evidence-based evaluation of the minimally invasive therapy for benign prostatic syndrome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Summary and overview of chapters 11-13 on minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPO of the current long version of the German S2e guideline.

RESULTS

In case of absolute indication for surgery or after unsatisfactory or undesired medical therapy, minimally invasive treatments such as UroLift® (Neotract Inc., Pleasanton, CA, USA), Rezῡm™ (Boston Scientific, Malborough, MA, USA), iTIND™ (Olympus America Inc., Westborough, MA, USA), and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) can be considered. These indirect/delayed ablative therapies offer lower morbidity and the possibility of performing them under local anesthesia, but they are inferior to direct ablative/resective techniques in terms of effectiveness and sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated German S2e guideline summarizes evidence-based recommendations for new minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPO, which present alternative treatment options for selected patients.

Penile Glans Necrosis Following Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Case Series and Review of Current Literature

PURPOSE

To report a case series of 6 patients with penile glans necrosis (PGN) following prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and review the current literature relating to PAE and PGN, including the emerging role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for PGN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients have failed medical BPH therapy and chose to undergo PAE over other minimally invasive BPH surgery. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative validated questionnaires such as the International Prostate Symptom Severity (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores, treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) and subsequent treatment for PGN were reviewed. All patients were follow-up with a minimum of 12 months post-PAE.

RESULTS

Between January 2018 and June 2020, six males with a mean age of 52.3 years (44-66 y) received PAE for BPH therapy. An immediate postoperative PGN was recognised in 4 out of 6 patients with the mean penile glans pain score of 3 and 4 patients reported altered penile glans sensitivity. Comparing the mean (and median) IPSS and IIEF-5 scores were 16.5 (16) and 21.3 (21) pre-PAE, there was improvements in IPSS and IIEF-5 scores at 12.0 (12) and 18.0 (18) at 12 months review. All patients reported normal penile glans sensitivity and only 1 patient reported an on-going penile glans pain (score 2). Four patients received HBOT while 2 patients elected for conservative care. All patients reported worse erectile function scores despite complete resolution of PGN.

CONCLUSIONS

PGN is a rare but serious complication of PAE with ensuing erectile dysfunction. HBOT appears to expedite the recovery process in men with PGN related to PAE with better erection scores compared to conservative measure.

Update on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia and the role of minimally invasive procedures

Lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia constitute a substantial burden, affecting the quality of life of those affected by this condition. While watchful waiting and medical management using a wide array of pharmaceuticals can be effective, surgery has been one of the most definite solutions for those highly affected by this condition. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold standard surgical procedure, but other alternatives using laser (HoLEP and ThuLEP) and robotic water jets (Aquablation) are emerging treatments aimed at reducing postoperative morbidity. Minimally invasive procedures conducted in outpatient settings and under local anesthesia or sedation are increasingly being used, especially in those patients with high surgical risk due to comorbidities. These procedures include prostatic arterial embolization, water vapor thermal therapy (Rezum), prostatic urethral lift (Urolift), temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND/iTIND), and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). The evidence supporting these treatments is growing, but some uncertainties remain as to what is the magnitude of their advantages and disadvantages compared to TURP. Innovations in the technologies involved in these new procedures may improve their profile for effectiveness and safety. Moreover, new devices are being investigated for marketing approval. Issues around costs and patients' preferences are also yet to be elucidated, thus their evolving role needs to be weighed against the aforementioned considerations.

Prostatic arterial embolization versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: 1-year outcomes

PURPOSE

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) are novel techniques for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS). The objective of this study was to describe and compare the functional results and complications of these two techniques at one year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective, monocentric study of all patients consecutively treated in our center with HoLEP or PAE for symptomatic or complicated BPH between January 2016 and December 2019. Data regarding patient and perioperative characteristics, follow-up biological results, functional questionnaires and uroflowmetry were collected from medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 490 and 57 patients were treated with HoLEP and PAE, respectively. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. The operative time was significantly higher for PAE (p < 0.001) and hospitalization time longer after HoLEP (p = 0.0006). The urinary catheterization time was longer after PAE (p < 0.001). The prostatic volume treated was higher with HoLEP than with PAE (56% versus 26%, p < 0.001). The mean difference in IPSS from baseline to 12 months was significantly higher after HoLEP than after PAE: - 17.58 versus - 8 (p < 0.001). The mean difference in QoL-IPSS from baseline to 12 months was significantly higher after HoLEP: - 4.09 versus - 2.27 (p < 0.001). The rate of postoperative adverse events in the first three months was similar between the two groups:35% after HoLEP and 33% after PAE (p = 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

HoLEP and PAE both significantly improved BPH-LUTS, with HoLEP having an advantage over PAE.

Prostatic artery embolization using reflux-control microcatheter: prospective experience addressing feasibility

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) using a reflux control microcatheter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective, single-center investigation that included 10 patients undergoing PAE for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributed to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month efficacy endpoints were obtained for all patients and included prostate-specific antigen (PSA), uroflowmetry, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and clinical assessment using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire and the IPSS-Quality of life (QoL) item. Complications were assessed using the Cirse classification system.

RESULTS

Ten patients entered statistical analysis and presented with significant LUTS improvement 12 months after PAE, as follows: mean IPSS reduction of 86.6% (2.8 vs. 20.7, - 17.9, P < 0.001), mean QoL reduction of 79.4% (1.1 vs. 5.4, - 4.3, P < 0.001), mean prostatic volume reduction of 38.4% (69.3 cm³ vs. 112.5 cm³, - 43.2 cm³, P < 0.001), mean peak urinary flow (Qmax) increase of 199.4% (19.9 mL/s vs. 6.6 mL/s, + 13.3 mL/s, P = 0.006) and mean PSA reduction of 50.1% (3.0 ng/mL vs. 6.1 ng/mL, - 3.0 ng/mL, P < 0.001). One patient (10%) needed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) after PAE due to a ball-valve effect. One microcatheter (10%) needed to be replaced during PAE due to occlusion. Non-target embolization was not observed in the cohort.

CONCLUSION

This initial experience suggests that PAE using a reflux control microcatheter is effective and safe for the treatment of LUTS attributed to BPH.

Safety Profile of Ambulatory Prostatic Artery Embolization after a Significant Learning Curve: Update on Adverse Events

Background: to report the safety of outpatient prostatic artery embolization (PAE) after a significant learning curve. Methods: a retrospective bi-institutional study was conducted between June 2018 and April 2022 on 311 consecutive patients, with a mean age of 69 years ± 9.8 (47–102), treated by outpatient PAE. Indications included lower urinary tract symptoms, acute urinary retention, and hematuria. When needed, 3D-imaging and/or coil protection of extra-prostatic supplies were performed to avoid non-target embolization. Adverse events were monitored at 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Results: bilateral PAE was achieved in 305/311 (98.1%). Mean dose area product/fluoroscopy times were 16,408.3 ± 12,078.9 (2959–81,608) μGy.m²/36.3 ± 1.7 (11–97) minutes. Coil protection was performed on 67/311 (21.5%) patients in 78 vesical, penile, or rectal supplies. Embolization-related adverse events varied between 0 and 2.6%, access-site adverse events between 0 and 18%, and were all minor. There was no major event. Conclusion: outpatient PAE performed after achieving a significant learning curve may lead to a decreased and low rate of adverse events. Experience in arterial anatomy and coil protection may play a role in safety, but the necessity of the latter in some patterns may need confirmation by additional studies in randomized designs.

Salvage versus primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: trends, outcomes and safety analysis

PURPOSE

To study the safety, efficacy and trends in index procedures leading to salvage holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (S-HoLEP).

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective review of HoLEPs performed between 2006 and 2020. Patients who underwent S-HoLEP were compared to those undergoing primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (P-HoLEP). The endpoint of primary interest were functional outcomes. Changes in index procedures over the study period were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 633 HoLEPs were performed during the study, with 217 being S-HoLEP. The S-HoLEP cohort was older than P-HoLEP cohort, 71.2 years vs 68.8 years (p = 0.03). All other factors were well matched. The most common index procedures prior to S-HoLEP included transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (87, 40.1%), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) (44, 20.3%), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) (24, 11.1%) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) (24, 11.1%). Preoperative prostate volume, IPSS and Q_max were similar between groups. Intra-operatively, S-HoLEP had longer procedure and morcellation times (p = 0.01 and 0.007). Postoperatively, the S-HoLEP cohort had longer catheter duration and hospitalization (both p < 0.001). Postoperative Q_max, IPSS and 90-day complication rates were similar. On temporal analysis, minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) have become more prevalent as index procedures.

CONCLUSION

S-HoLEP is safe and efficacious for patients requiring additional BPH surgical intervention. S-HoLEP patients had longer operative times and hospital stays but equivalent postoperative functional outcomes compared to P-HoLEP. As MIST mature and gain traction, it is expected that rates of S-HoLEP will continue to rise.

Feasibility of Outpatient Transradial Prostatic Artery Embolization and Safety of a Shortened Deflation Protocol for Hemostasis

Background: to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a shorter time to hemostasis applied to outpatient transradial (TR) Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE). Methods: a retrospective bi-institutional study was conducted between July 2018 and April 2022 on 300 patients treated by outpatient TR PAE. Indications included lower urinary tract symptoms, acute urinary retention, and hematuria. Mean patient height was 176 ± 6.3 (158–192) cm. The primary endpoint was safety of a 45 min deflation protocol for hemostasis. The secondary endpoint was the feasibility of PAE using TR access. Results: technical success was 98.7% (296/300). There was one failure due to patient height. Mean DAP/fluoroscopy times were 16,225 ± 12,126.3 (2959–81,608) μGy·m²/35 ± 14.7 (11–97) min, and mean time to discharge was 80 ± 6 (75–90) min. All access site and embolization-related adverse events were minor. Mild hematoma occurred in 10% (30/300), radial artery occlusion (RAO) in 10/300 (3.3%) cases, and history of smoking was a predictor for RAO. There was no major event. Conclusion: the safety of TR PAE using a 45 min time to hemostasis was confirmed, and TR PAE is feasible in most cases. Radial artery occlusion was still observed and may be favored by smoking.

Guiding the prostatic artery embolization procedure with computational uid dynamics

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease associated with lower urinary tract symptoms and the most frequent benign tumor in men. To reduce BPH therapy complications, prostatic artery embolization (PAE) was developed to replace the surgical options. PAE is a minimally invasive technique in which emboli are injected into the prostate arteries (PA), obstructing the blood flow in the hypervascular nodules. In this work, a personalized PAE treatment strategy was proposed using patient-specific computational fluid dynamics (CFD). First, the hemodynamics environment in the iliac arterial tree considering a large network of bifurcations was studied. The results showed complex blood flow patterns in the iliac arterial network. Subsequently, the transport of embolic particulates during PAE for the standard horizontal and a hypothetical vertical patient positioning was simulated using Lagrangian particle tracking. Emboli with different sizes were released at various locations across the iliac arterial tree. The emboli entering the PA were mapped back to their initial location to create emboli release maps (ERMs). The obtained ERMs during the standard patient positioning for smaller emboli at certain release locations showed distinct regions in which if the emboli were released within these regions, all of them would reach the PA without non-target embolization. During the hypothetical vertical patient positioning, the larger emboli formed a larger coherent region in the ERMs. Our patient-specific model can be used to find the best spatial location for emboli injection and perform the embolization procedure with minimal off-target delivery.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a relatively new, minimally invasive treatment approach.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PAE compared to other procedures for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, up to 8 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomized studies (NRS, limited to prospective cohort studies with concurrent comparison groups) enrolling men over the age of 40 years with LUTS attributed to BPH undergoing PAE versus TURP or other surgical interventions.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs.  MAIN RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE versus TURP (six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE versus sham (one RCT). Mean age was 66 years, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 22.8, and prostate volume of participants was 72.8 mL. This abstract focuses on the comparison of PAE versus TURP as the primary topic of interest. Prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate We included six RCTs and two NRSs with short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up, and two RCTs and one NRS with long-term follow-up (13 to 24 months).  Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urologic symptom score improvement measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms (mean difference [MD] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.37 to 3.81; 6 RCTs, 360 participants; I² = 78%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life as measured by the IPSS-quality of life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life between PAE and TURP, respectively (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.84; 5 RCTs, 300 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence). While we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.97; 4 RCTs, 250 participants; I² = 24%; very low-certainty evidence), PAE likely increases retreatments (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.27; 4 RCTs, 303 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). PAE may make little to no difference in erectile function measured by the International Index of Erectile Function-5 on a scale from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating better function (MD -0.50 points, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.88; 2 RCTs, 120 participants; I² = 68%; low-certainty evidence). Based on NRS evidence, PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73; 1 NRS, 260 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores (MD 2.58 points, 95% CI -1.54 to 6.71; 2 RCTs, 176 participants; I² = 73%; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (MD 0.50 points, 95% CI -0.03 to 1.04; 2 RCTs, 176 participants; I² = 29%; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.05; 2 RCTs, 206 participants; I² = 72%; very low-certainty evidence). PAE likely increases retreatments (RR 3.80, 95% CI 1.32 to 10.93; 1 RCT, 81 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). While PAE may result in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 3.09 points, 95% CI -0.76 to 6.94; 1 RCT, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence), PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; 1 RCT, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to TURP, PAE may provide similar improvement in urologic symptom scores and quality of life. While we are very uncertain about major adverse events, PAE likely increases retreatment rates. While erectile function may be similar, PAE may reduce ejaculatory disorders. Certainty of evidence for the outcomes of this review was low or very low except for retreatment (moderate-certainty evidence), signaling that our confidence in the reported effect size is limited or very limited, and that this topic should be better informed by future research.

Prostate Artery Embolization-Review of Indications, Patient Selection, Techniques and Results

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) are a very common problem in men ranging from mild urinary symptoms to recurrent urinary tract infections or renal failure. Numerous treatment options are available ranging from conservative medical therapies to more invasive surgical options. Prostate artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a novel treatment option for this common problem with clinical efficacy comparable to the current surgical gold standard, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PAE offers fewer complications and side effects without a need for general anesthesia or hospitalization. This review discusses the indications for prostate artery embolization in addition to LUTS, patient evaluation in patients with LUTS, PAE technique and clinical results, with an emphasis on efficacy and safety.

Role of Ultrasound Elastography in Patient Selection for Prostatic Artery Embolization

PURPOSE

To determine the effects of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on prostate elasticity as assessed using ultrasound elastography (US-E) and to describe baseline US-E's potential role in patient selection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective investigation that included 20 patients undergoing PAE to treat lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). US-E with measurement of the prostatic elastic modulus (EM) and shear wave velocity (SWV) was performed before PAE and at 1-month follow-up. Baseline, 3-month, and 1-year follow-up evaluations included prostate-specific antigen, uroflowmetry, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and clinical assessment using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) metrics.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients entered statistical analysis. US-E showed a significant reduction in mean prostatic EM (34.4 kPa vs 46.3 kPa, -24.7%, P < .0001) and SWV (3.55 m/s vs 4.46 m/s, -20.0%, P < .0001) after PAE. There were moderate positive correlations between baseline EM and 1-year IPSS (R = 0.62, P = .007) and between baseline SWV and 1-year IPSS (R = 0.68, P = .002). Baseline SWV ≥ 5.59 m/s and baseline EM ≥ 50.14 kPa were associated with suboptimal IPSS and QoL outcomes after PAE with high degrees of sensitivity (100%) and specificity (69-100%).

CONCLUSIONS

PAE led to a positive effect on the BPH dynamic component related to prostatic elasticity. There was a moderate positive correlation between baseline prostatic elastographic parameters and 12-month IPSS. Measurement of baseline elastographic characteristics may become useful for the evaluation and selection of patients for PAE.

Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to express continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows. Urologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores (MD of International Prostate Symptoms Score [IPSS]) compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence). Major adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence). Retreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). Erectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence). Ejaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). TURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may result in fewer major adverse events, especially in the case of PUL and PAE; resulting in better rankings for symptoms scores. PUL may result in fewer retreatments compared to other interventions, especially TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates at long-term follow-up. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.

Penile Glans Necrosis following Prostatic Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Rare but Serious Complication

Background

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a novel endovascular procedure to treat men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) symptoms who wish to maintain sexual potency postoperatively. However, serious treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of PAE such as penile glans necrosis (PGN) can be devastating and require urgent attention. Case presentation. Mr GM is a 65-year-old sexually active Anglo-Saxon man who have long-standing BPH symptoms unresponsive to medical therapy. While he had an uneventful bilateral superselective PAE using gel foam, there were signs to suggest of PGN, and this was treated conservatively. The patient presented to the emergency department 5 days later with a painful, dark penile glans and accompanying urinary dysuria and hematuria. Clinical examination confirmed evolving PGN. He received 10 courses of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) with complete resolution of his PGN.

Conclusion

While superselective embolization is usually always performed, nontarget embolization may occur, as intravascular particles may reflux into adjacent vessels. In this unique and extremely rare case report of PGN following PAE, complete resolution was achieved with HBOT. Proposed benefits of HBOT include anti-inflammation, promotion of neovascularization, and induced rate of collagen deposition, resulting in a faster and more effective resolution of PGN.

Improving Cone-Beam CT Angiography for Prostatic Artery Embolization: Is a Low-Dose Protocol Equivalent to the Standard?

PURPOSE

To compare the utility of low-dose versus standard cone-beam computed tomography (CT) angiography protocols in identifying nontarget embolization (NTE) during prostatic artery embolization (PAE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, single-center, Phase-1 study (NCT02592473) was conducted for lower urinary tract symptoms in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate volume, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life score (QoL), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), peak flow rate, UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), and postvoid residual were recorded at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24-months after PAE. Six-second (standard protocol, n = 29) or 5-second (low-dose protocol n = 45) rotations were made. Images were selected and matched in pairs by areas of NTE and compared by readers using a binomial generalized estimating equation model. Procedural outcomes were analyzed using a linear mixed model.

RESULTS

Seventy-four cone-beam CT angiographies were performed in 21 patients. IPSS and QoL scores significantly improved (P <.05). There was no change in UCLA-PCI or IIEF scores. Dose area product of the low- and standard-dose protocol were 37,340.82 mGy·cm² ± 104.66 and 62,645.66 mGy·cm² ± 12,711.48, respectively, representing a dose reduction of 40.4%. A total of 120 comparisons showed no preference between the 2 protocols (P =.24). Observers identified 76 and 69 instances of NTE in the standard- and low-dose protocols, respectively (P =.125).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose cone-beam CT angiography achieved equivalent clinical utility in identifying NTE during PAE, with the advantage of a lower radiation dose.

[Surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction: Guidelines from the Committee for Male Voiding Disorders of the French Urology Association]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Committee (CTMH) of the French Urology Association was to propose an update of the guidelines for surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO).

METHODS

All available data published on PubMed® between 2018 and 2020 were systematically searched and reviewed. All papers assessing surgical and interventional management of adult patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) were included for analysis. After studies critical analysis, conclusions with level of evidence and French guidelines were elaborated in order to answer the predefined clinical questions.

RESULTS/GUIDELINES

Offer a trans-uretral incision of the prostate to treat patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with a prostate volume<30cm³, without a middle lobe. TUIP increases the chances of preserving ejaculation. Propose mono- or bipolar trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS with a prostate volume between 30 and 80cm³. Vaporization by Greenlight™ or by bipolar energy can be offered as an alternative to TURP. Offer a Greenlight™ laser vaporization to patients at risk of bleeding. Offer endoscopic prostate enucleation to surgically treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS as an alternative to TURP and open prostatectomy (OP). Minimally invasive prostatectomy is an alternative to OP in centers without access to adequate endoscopic procedures. Embolization of the prostatic arteries may be offered in the event of a contraindication or refusal of surgery for prostates with a volume>80cm³. Prostatic uretral lift is an alternative in patients interested in preserving their ejaculatory function and with a prostate volume<70cm³ without a middle lobe. Aquablation and Rezum™ are under evaluation and should be offered in research protocols.

CONCLUSION

Major changes in surgical management of BPO have occurred and aim at reducing morbidity and improving quality of life of patients.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a relatively new, minimally invasive treatment approach.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PAE compared to other procedures for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, up until 25 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomized studies (NRS, limited to prospective cohort studies with concurrent comparison groups) enrolling men over the age of 40 with LUTS attributed to BPH undergoing PAE versus TURP or other surgical interventions.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs.  MAIN RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE versus TURP (six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE versus sham (one RCT). Mean age, IPSS, and prostate volume of participants were 66 years, 22.8, and 72.8 mL, respectively. This abstract focuses on the comparison of PAE versus TURP as the primary topic of interest. PAE versus TURP We included six RCTs and two NRSs with short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up and one RCT with long-term follow-up (13 to 24 months).  Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urologic symptom score improvement (mean difference [MD] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.40 to 3.50; 369 participants; 6 RCTs; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. There may be little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.68; 309 participants; 5 RCTs; I² = 56%; low-certainty evidence) as measured by the IPSS quality of life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life between PAE and TURP, respectively. While we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.10; 250 participants; 4 RCTs; I² = 26%; very low-certainty evidence), PAE may increase re-treatments (RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.98; 204 participants; 3 RCTs; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Based on 18 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 47 more (0 more to 214 more) per 1000 men undergoing PAE.   We are very uncertain about the effects on erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -6.35 to 6.29; 129 participants; 2 RCTs; I² = 78%; very low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Index of Erectile Function at 5 on a scale from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating better function. NRS evidence when available yielded similar results. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73; 260 participants; 1 NRS; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on urologic symptom scores (MD 0.30, 95% CI -3.17 to 3.77; 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to TURP. Quality of life may be similar (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.89; 95 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.13; 107 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may increase re-treatment rates (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.29; 305 participants; low-certainty evidence); based on 56 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group. this corresponds to 143 more (25 more to 430 more) per 1000 men in the PAE group.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TURP up to 12 months (short-term follow-up), PAE may provide similar improvement in urologic symptom scores and quality of life. While we are very uncertain about major adverse events, PAE may increase re-treatment rates. We are uncertain about erectile function, but PAE may reduce ejaculatory disorders. Longer term (follow-up of 13 to 24 months), we are very uncertain as to how both procedures compare with regard to urologic symptom scores, but quality of life appears to be similar. We are very uncertain about major adverse events but PAE may increase re-treatments. We did not find longer term evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Certainty of evidence for the main outcomes of this review was low or very low, signalling that our confidence in the reported effect size is limited or very limited, and that this topic should be better informed by future research.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Prostatic Artery Embolization to Gold-Standard Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

PURPOSE

To report a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multi-database search for relevant literature was conducted on 15 July 2020 to include studies published on or before that date. Search terms used were: (prostate embolization OR prostatic embolization OR prostate embolization OR prostatic embolization) AND (prostatic hyperplasia OR prostatic obstruction). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration and ROBINS-I criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Six studies with 598 patients were included. TURP was associated with significantly more improvement in maximum urinary flow rate (Q_max) (mean difference = 5.02 mL/s; 95% CI [2.66,7.38]; p < 0.0001; I² = 89%), prostate volume (mean difference = 15.59 mL; 95% CI [7.93,23.25]; p < 0.00001; I² = 88%), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (mean difference = 1.02 ng/mL; 95% CI [0.14,1.89]; p = 0.02; I² = 71%) compared to PAE. No significant difference between PAE and TURP was observed for changes in International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life (IPSS-QoL), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), and post-void residual (PVR). PAE was associated with fewer adverse events (AEs) (39.0% vs. 77.7%; p < 0.00001) and shorter hospitalization times (mean difference = -1.94 days; p < 0.00001), but longer procedural times (mean difference = 51.43 min; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Subjective symptom improvement was equivalent between TURP and PAE. While TURP demonstrated larger improvements for some objective parameters, PAE was associated with fewer AEs and shorter hospitalization times.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II

Level 2a, Systematic Review.

The First 48 Consecutive Patients with 3-Year Symptom Score Follow-Up Post-Prostate Artery Embolization (PAE) at a Single-Centre University Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Few studies on prostate artery embolization (PAE) follow patients up after 12 months. We aimed to evaluate the symptomatic efficacy of PAE in our patient cohort at 3 years.

METHOD

A total of 48 consecutive patients undergoing PAE from June 2012 to August 2014 were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent formal urodynamics to confirm bladder outflow obstruction prior to PAE. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was performed at baseline, 3 months, 12 months and 3 years post-PAE.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 65.6 ± 7.4, prostate volume 99.1 ± 56.6 cm³, IPSS 23.5 ± 6.0, quality-of-life score 4.6 ± 0.9, Qmax 8.4 ± 2.8 ml/s, post-void residual volume 185.8 ± 55.6 ml. Technical success (bilateral embolization) was achieved in 43 out of 48 cases (89.6%). 11/39 bilateral PAE patients completing follow-up (2 died, 2 lost to follow-up) underwent surgery, indicating a 71.8% clinical success rate at 3 years. No significant change was demonstrated in IPSS or QOL between 1 and 3 years for patients free from surgical intervention (IPSS 8.3 vs 10.0, p = 0.09 and QOL 1.3 vs 1.5, p = 0.23). 3/11 patients undergoing surgery had a prominent 'ball-valve' median lobe, and 1/11 patients had a high bladder neck elevation contributing to symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Clinical success post-PAE remains high with few patients opting for surgery or experiencing a worsening of symptoms after 12 months.

Embolisation of prostate arteries in benign prostatic hyperplasia in non-surgical patients

OBJECTIVE

To present the results of a multidisciplinary study of two tertiary hospitals, together with urology services, on 102 consecutive patients not candidates for surgery treated for more than 6 years, in whom prostatic arteries were embolised for the treatment of benign hyperplasia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From December 2012 to February 2019, 102 patients with symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) not candidates for surgery or who explicitly rejected surgery, with an average age of 73.9 years (range 47.5-94.5), underwent prostatic artery embolisation. The patients were followed up by questionnaires on urinary symptoms, sexual function and impact on quality of life, as well as measurement of prostate volume, uroflowmetry and prostate specific antigen (PSA) at one, 3 and 6 months and one year following the procedure.

RESULTS

The technique was successful in 96% of patients (76.2% bilateral and 19.8% unilateral). The mean duration of the procedure was 92minutes and of the radioscopy 35.2minutes. Statistically significant changes were demonstrated (p <.05) in PSA, peak urinary flow, QoL (quality of life) questionnaire and the International Index of Erectile Function (IPSS). PSA had reduced by 58% from baseline at 3 months. Similarly, the Qmax had increased significantly by 63% in the third month following embolisation. A significant improvement in the QoL and IPSS tests was achieved, with a reduction of 3.7 points and a mean 13.5 points, respectively, at one year's follow-up. Prostate volume showed a non-statistically significant decrease at follow-up of one year following treatment. A series of minor complications was collected, no case of which required hospital admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostatic embolisation for the treatment of BPH proved an effective and safe technique in patients who were not candidates for surgery.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Patient Evaluation, Anatomy, and Technique for Successful Treatment

Symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia is a common condition in the aging population that results in bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms and decreased quality of life. Patients often are treated with medication and offered surgery for persistent symptoms. Transurethral resection of the prostate is considered the traditional standard of care, but several minimally invasive surgical treatments also are offered. Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is emerging as an effective treatment option with few reported adverse effects, minimal blood loss, and infrequent overnight hospitalization. The procedure is offered to patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms and depressed urinary flow due to bladder outlet obstruction. Proper patient selection and meticulous embolization are critical to optimize results. To perform PAE safely and avoid nontarget embolization, interventional radiologists must have a detailed understanding of the pelvic arterial anatomy. Although the prostatic arteries often arise from the internal pudendal arteries, several anatomic variants and pelvic anastomoses are encountered. Prospective cohort studies, small randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses have shown improved symptoms after treatment, with serious adverse effects occurring rarely. This article reviews the basic principles of PAE that must be understood to develop a thriving PAE practice. These principles include patient evaluation, review of surgical therapies, details of pelvic arterial anatomy, basic principles of embolization, and an overview of published results. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2019.

Transurethral resection of the prostate versus prostatic artery embolization in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis

Background

To compare the clinical efficiency and safety of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods

We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for studies from May 1998 to May 2018 for studies comparing the efficiency and safety of TURP with PAE. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. After data extraction and quality assessment, we used RevMan 5.2 to pool the data.

Results

A total of four studies involving 506 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that the Qmax was higher in TURP group than PAE with a significant difference (WMD:4.66, 95%CI 2.54 to 6.79, P < 0.05). The postoperative QOL was lower in the TURP than PAE group (WMD: -0.53, 95%CI -0.88 to − 0.18, P < 0.05). The postoperative prostate volume was significantly smaller in the TURP than PAE group (WMD: -8.26, 95%CI -12.64 to − 3.88, P < 0.05). The operative time was significantly shorter in the TURP than PAE group (WMD: -10.55, 95%CI -16.92 to − 4.18, P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the postoperative IPSS and complications between TURP and PAE (P > 0.05, WMD:1.56, 95%CI -0.67 to 3.78, p = 0,05, OR:1.54, 95%CI 1.00 to2.38, respectively).

Conclusions

TURP could achieve improved Qmax and QoL compared to PAE. Therefore, for patients with BPH and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), TURP was superior to PAE.

[Surgical treatment of BPO: Standard and innovations]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia has dramatically changed in the recent years towards higher proportion of endoscopic treatment and fewer perioperative complications. Nevertheless the question of urinary and sexual quality of life after surgical treatment remains partially unresolved with a high proportion of retrograde ejaculation after conventional surgical treatments. Therefore mini-invasive alternatives to conventional surgery have been proposed. The objective of this literature review was to provide an overview of the alternatives to monopolar TURP currently available in France.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A non-systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted from the PubMed database to retrieve the most relevant scientific publications. A first research was cross-referenced with the results of literature reviews already published and enriched by the authors of this review. A synthesis is proposed for each alternative technique mentioning its level of clinical development, but also its potential advantages and disadvantages compared to conventional surgical techniques.

RESULTS

The quality of life of patients after surgical or interventional management has become the main priority of urologists since the risks of perioperative complication have been reduced by the use of laser or bipolar endoscopic techniques. Thanks to the development of minimally invasive alternatives that are better and better evaluated by randomized trials versus interventional simulation and conventional surgical treatment, more personalized care is possible. Patients' expectations and their individual risk factors can thus be placed at the center of the therapeutic decision and the preoperative information.

CONCLUSION

The surgical and interventional management of LUTS due to BPH has evolved to lower perioperative morbidity with the help of numerous technological developments. Mini-invasive alternatives to standard treatment have also been proposed in order to improve the quality of postoperative sexual life. These alternatives provide significant improvement in LUTS that remains lower than after conventional treatments. Somme of these alternative are also not fully supported by clinical trials, which should urge urologists to act with caution when proposing these alternatives in daily clinical practice.

Prostate Artery Embolization in Patients with Prostate Volumes of 80 mL or More: A Single-Institution Retrospective Experience of 93 Patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of prostate artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia for prostates ≥ 80 mL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of 93 patients with prostate volumes (PVs) ≥ 80 mL treated with PAE from April 2014 through October 2017. Mean patient age was 68.5 years (range 52-88) and mean age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index was 3.2 (range 1-8). Exclusion criteria included history of biopsy-proven prostate cancer or catheter dependency. Clinical and urodynamic outcomes were reviewed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Adverse events were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Mean PV decreased significantly from 141.7 mL to 98.1 mL at 3 months (P < .01) and 82.2 mL at 12 months (P < .01). Significant improvements were seen in 3- and 12-month mean International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) (22.3 vs 7.1 and 7.3, respectively; P < .01 for both), quality of life (QOL) (4.4 vs 1.2 and 1.3; P < .01 for both), and postvoid residual volume (196.7mL vs 92.1 and 61.2 mL; P < .01 and P < .01, respectively). Significant improvement was also seen in 3-month mean maximum urinary flow: 7.7 mL/s vs 12.8 mL/s (P < .01). One grade II complication of stroke occurred; all other complications were self-limited and grade I.

CONCLUSIONS

PAE achieved a clinically and statistically significant improvement in symptom burden and secondary outcome measures in patients with PVs ≥ 80 mL. PAE may be an alternate treatment for patients for whom conventional surgical options are limited or associated with significant morbidity.

Use of angioembolization in urology: a review

This review discusses current and developing indications for angioembolization (AE) techniques in urology cases, including trauma and non-trauma uses for kidney, prostate, and bladder conditions. AE methods, complications and technical and clinical outcomes are outlined for each indication for the purpose of aiding urologists in selecting ideal candidates for this procedure.

[Prostate artery embolization (PAE) : Technique and results]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

In the treatment of the benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) medical and surgical therapies have been established.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is an innovative endovascular technique that might close the gap between both these procedures.

PERFORMANCE

The PAE procedure is safe and has a low incidence of side effects. The efficacy of PAE has been proven for medium sized and large sized glands as well as for intravesical protrusions.

ACHIEVEMENTS

The complex mechanism of PAE carries the potential to cure lower urinary tract symptoms as well as to retard the progression of the hyperplasia.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Data concerning the long-term efficacy are missing at present.

Prostate Artery Embolization via Transradial or Transulnar versus Transfemoral Arterial Access: Technical Results

PURPOSE

To compare safety and feasibility of prostate artery embolization (PAE) via transradial/transulnar access (TR/UA) and transfemoral access (TFA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted for 3 cohorts: the first 32 consecutive PAE procedures performed via TFA (initial TFA, January 2014 to August 2015), the following 32 procedures performed via TFA (advanced TFA, August 2015 to February 2016), and the first 32 procedures performed via TR/UA (February 2016 to July 2016). Indications included lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 68), urinary retention (n = 24), and preoperative embolization before prostatectomy (n = 4). A single operator performed all procedures at a single institution.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 29/32 (90.6%) initial TFA procedures, 31/32 (96.9%) advanced TFA procedures, and 30/32 (93.8%) TR/UA procedures. Mean procedure time was 110.0 minutes in TR/UA group, 155.1 min in initial TFA group, and 131.3 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .03 relative to TR/UA); mean fluoroscopy time was 38.8 minutes in TR/UA group, 56.5 minutes in initial TFA group, and 48.0 minutes in advanced TFA group (P < .01 and P = .02 relative to TR/UA). Access site-related and overall adverse events did not vary significantly among study cohorts (P > .15 and P > .05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TR/UA represents a safe and feasible approach to PAE with a comparable safety profile to TFA. Reduced procedure and fluoroscopy times might be attributable to the learning curve or method of arterial access.