Yuan-an Gao1, Yan Huang, Rui Zhang, Yu-dong Yang, Qing Zhang, Min Hou, Yi Wang. 1. From the Department of Radiology, Institute of Surgery Research, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400042, China (Y.G., Y.W.); Interventional Radiology and Medical Imaging Center (Y.G., Y.H., R.Z., M.H.); and Department of Urology (Y.Y., Q.Z.), the 273th Hospital of Chinese PLA, Xinjiang, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the care of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized clinical trial was approved by the institutional review board. A total of 114 patients provided written informed consent and were randomly assigned to undergo PAE (n = 57) or TURP (n = 57). The groups were compared regarding relevant adverse events and complications. Functional results--including improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), peak urinary flow, postvoiding residual urine volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and prostate volume--were assessed at 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up between January 20, 2007, and January 31, 2012. Student t test, χ(2) test, Fisher exact test, and repeated measures analysis of variance were used, as appropriate. RESULTS:Overall technical success rates for TURP and PAE were 100% and 94.7%, respectively; the clinical failure rates were 3.9% and 9.4%, respectively. The six functional results showed improvements after TURP and PAE at all follow-up time points when compared with preoperative values (P = .001). However, the TURP group showed greater degrees of improvement in the IPSS, QOL, peak urinary flow, and postvoiding residual urine volume at 1 and 3 months, as well as greater reductions in the PSA level and prostate volume at all follow-up time points, when compared with the PAE group (P < .05). The PAE group showed more overall adverse events and complications (P = .029), mostly related to acute urinary retention (25.9%), postembolization syndrome (11.1%), and treatment failures (5.3% technical; 9.4% clinical). CONCLUSION: Both procedures resulted in significant clinical improvements in the treatment of BPH. However, the advantages of the PAE procedure must be weighed against the potential for technical and clinical failures in a minority of patients. RSNA, 2013
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the care of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized clinical trial was approved by the institutional review board. A total of 114 patients provided written informed consent and were randomly assigned to undergo PAE (n = 57) or TURP (n = 57). The groups were compared regarding relevant adverse events and complications. Functional results--including improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), peak urinary flow, postvoiding residual urine volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and prostate volume--were assessed at 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up between January 20, 2007, and January 31, 2012. Student t test, χ(2) test, Fisher exact test, and repeated measures analysis of variance were used, as appropriate. RESULTS: Overall technical success rates for TURP and PAE were 100% and 94.7%, respectively; the clinical failure rates were 3.9% and 9.4%, respectively. The six functional results showed improvements after TURP and PAE at all follow-up time points when compared with preoperative values (P = .001). However, the TURP group showed greater degrees of improvement in the IPSS, QOL, peak urinary flow, and postvoiding residual urine volume at 1 and 3 months, as well as greater reductions in the PSA level and prostate volume at all follow-up time points, when compared with the PAE group (P < .05). The PAE group showed more overall adverse events and complications (P = .029), mostly related to acute urinary retention (25.9%), postembolization syndrome (11.1%), and treatment failures (5.3% technical; 9.4% clinical). CONCLUSION: Both procedures resulted in significant clinical improvements in the treatment of BPH. However, the advantages of the PAE procedure must be weighed against the potential for technical and clinical failures in a minority of patients. RSNA, 2013
Authors: Souhil Lebdai; Nicolas Barry Delongchamps; Marc Sapoval; Grégoire Robert; Gregory Amouyal; Nicolas Thiounn; Gilles Karsenty; Alain Ruffion; Alexandre de La Taille; Aurélien Descazeaud; Romain Mathieu Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jeremy Y C Teoh; Peter K F Chiu; Chi-Hang Yee; Hon-Ming Wong; Chi-Kwok Chan; Eddie S Y Chan; Simon S M Hou; Chi-Fai Ng Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Mario Petrillo; Filippo Pesapane; Enrico Maria Fumarola; Ilaria Emili; Marzia Acquasanta; Francesca Patella; Salvatore Alessio Angileri; Umberto G Rossi; Igor Piacentini; Antonio Maria Granata; Anna Maria Ierardi; Gianpaolo Carrafiello Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2018-04
Authors: J Curtis Nickel; Lorne Aaron; Jack Barkin; Dean Elterman; Mahmoud Nachabé; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 1.862