Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pilan,Bruna Ferreira
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Assis,André Moreira de, Moreira,Airton Mota, Rodrigues,Vanessa Cristina de Paula, Carnevale,Francisco Cesar
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Radiologia Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842022000100006
Resumo: Abstract Objective: To describe the efficacy and safety of protective embolization during prostatic artery embolization, as well as to discuss its clinical relevance. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study including 39 patients who underwent prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia between June 2008 and March 2018. Follow-up evaluations, performed at 3 and 12 months after the procedure, included determination of the International Prostate Symptom Score, a quality of life score, and prostate-specific antigen levels, as well as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and uroflowmetry. Results: Protective embolization was performed in 45 arteries: in the middle rectal artery in 19 (42.2%); in the accessory internal pudendal artery in 11 (24.4%); in an internal pudendal artery anastomosis in 10 (22.2%); in the superior vesical artery in four (8.9%); and in the obturator artery in one (2.2%). There was one case of nontarget embolization leading to a penile ulcer, which was attributed to reflux of microspheres to an unprotected artery. There were no complications related to the protected branches. All of the patients showed significant improvement in all of the outcomes studied (p < 0.05), and none reported worsening of sexual function during follow-up. Conclusion: Protective embolization can reduce nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization without affecting the results of the procedure. In addition, no adverse events other than those expected or previously reported were observed. Therefore, protective embolization of pudendal region is safe.
id CBR-1_2fa89960e14935f507f976a89dcee1c8
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-39842022000100006
network_acronym_str CBR-1
network_name_str Radiologia Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolizationProstateProstatic hyperplasiaEmbolization, therapeutic/methodsErectile dysfunctionAbstract Objective: To describe the efficacy and safety of protective embolization during prostatic artery embolization, as well as to discuss its clinical relevance. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study including 39 patients who underwent prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia between June 2008 and March 2018. Follow-up evaluations, performed at 3 and 12 months after the procedure, included determination of the International Prostate Symptom Score, a quality of life score, and prostate-specific antigen levels, as well as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and uroflowmetry. Results: Protective embolization was performed in 45 arteries: in the middle rectal artery in 19 (42.2%); in the accessory internal pudendal artery in 11 (24.4%); in an internal pudendal artery anastomosis in 10 (22.2%); in the superior vesical artery in four (8.9%); and in the obturator artery in one (2.2%). There was one case of nontarget embolization leading to a penile ulcer, which was attributed to reflux of microspheres to an unprotected artery. There were no complications related to the protected branches. All of the patients showed significant improvement in all of the outcomes studied (p < 0.05), and none reported worsening of sexual function during follow-up. Conclusion: Protective embolization can reduce nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization without affecting the results of the procedure. In addition, no adverse events other than those expected or previously reported were observed. Therefore, protective embolization of pudendal region is safe.Publicação do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem2022-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842022000100006Radiologia Brasileira v.55 n.1 2022reponame:Radiologia Brasileira (Online)instname:Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR)instacron:CBR10.1590/0100-3984.2021.0021info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPilan,Bruna FerreiraAssis,André Moreira deMoreira,Airton MotaRodrigues,Vanessa Cristina de PaulaCarnevale,Francisco Cesareng2022-02-07T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-39842022000100006Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/rb/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpradiologiabrasileira@cbr.org.br1678-70990100-3984opendoar:2022-02-07T00:00Radiologia Brasileira (Online) - Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization
title Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization
spellingShingle Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization
Pilan,Bruna Ferreira
Prostate
Prostatic hyperplasia
Embolization, therapeutic/methods
Erectile dysfunction
title_short Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization
title_full Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization
title_fullStr Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization
title_full_unstemmed Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization
title_sort Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization
author Pilan,Bruna Ferreira
author_facet Pilan,Bruna Ferreira
Assis,André Moreira de
Moreira,Airton Mota
Rodrigues,Vanessa Cristina de Paula
Carnevale,Francisco Cesar
author_role author
author2 Assis,André Moreira de
Moreira,Airton Mota
Rodrigues,Vanessa Cristina de Paula
Carnevale,Francisco Cesar
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pilan,Bruna Ferreira
Assis,André Moreira de
Moreira,Airton Mota
Rodrigues,Vanessa Cristina de Paula
Carnevale,Francisco Cesar
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Prostate
Prostatic hyperplasia
Embolization, therapeutic/methods
Erectile dysfunction
topic Prostate
Prostatic hyperplasia
Embolization, therapeutic/methods
Erectile dysfunction
description Abstract Objective: To describe the efficacy and safety of protective embolization during prostatic artery embolization, as well as to discuss its clinical relevance. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study including 39 patients who underwent prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia between June 2008 and March 2018. Follow-up evaluations, performed at 3 and 12 months after the procedure, included determination of the International Prostate Symptom Score, a quality of life score, and prostate-specific antigen levels, as well as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and uroflowmetry. Results: Protective embolization was performed in 45 arteries: in the middle rectal artery in 19 (42.2%); in the accessory internal pudendal artery in 11 (24.4%); in an internal pudendal artery anastomosis in 10 (22.2%); in the superior vesical artery in four (8.9%); and in the obturator artery in one (2.2%). There was one case of nontarget embolization leading to a penile ulcer, which was attributed to reflux of microspheres to an unprotected artery. There were no complications related to the protected branches. All of the patients showed significant improvement in all of the outcomes studied (p < 0.05), and none reported worsening of sexual function during follow-up. Conclusion: Protective embolization can reduce nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization without affecting the results of the procedure. In addition, no adverse events other than those expected or previously reported were observed. Therefore, protective embolization of pudendal region is safe.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-02-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842022000100006
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-39842022000100006
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0100-3984.2021.0021
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Publicação do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Publicação do Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Radiologia Brasileira v.55 n.1 2022
reponame:Radiologia Brasileira (Online)
instname:Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR)
instacron:CBR
instname_str Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR)
instacron_str CBR
institution CBR
reponame_str Radiologia Brasileira (Online)
collection Radiologia Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Radiologia Brasileira (Online) - Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv radiologiabrasileira@cbr.org.br
_version_ 1754208941080838144