Daniel Christidis1,2, E Clarebrough3,4, V Ly5,3, M Perera5, H Woo6, N Lawrentschuk5,7,8, D Bolton5,8. 1. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Christidis.daniel@gmail.com. 2. Young Urology Researchers Organization, Melbourne, Australia. Christidis.daniel@gmail.com. 3. Young Urology Researchers Organization, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. Sydney Adventist Hospital Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 7. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has seen a recent increase in interest as a treatment for men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). The appeal of this intervention lies in reported reduction in morbidity and its minimally invasive nature. The purpose of this review is to assess the safety and efficacy of PAE as a new treatment in BPO and explore risks surrounding its performance. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed. Medical databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, limited to English, peer-reviewed articles. Search terms included prostatic artery embolization, lower urinary tracts symptoms, minimally invasive therapies, interventional radiology prostate, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Articles were screened by two independent reviewers for content on development, methods, outcomes, and complications of PAE. RESULTS: Suitability of patients to undergo PAE depends on review of patient history, pre-procedure visualisation of appropriate vascular anatomy and clinical parameters. Despite this selection of candidates favourable for procedural success, PAE is not without risk of complications, some of which can significantly affect patient quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Although initial findings show promise regarding safety and efficacy of PAE in improving symptom and quality-of-life scores, further investigation is required to establish durability of effect and the appropriate use of this experimental modality. There is currently limited robust evidence for the beneficial outcomes of PAE. Long-term follow-up studies will add to the evidence base to help further assess the feasibility of this procedure as an alternative to TURP.
PURPOSE:Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has seen a recent increase in interest as a treatment for men with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). The appeal of this intervention lies in reported reduction in morbidity and its minimally invasive nature. The purpose of this review is to assess the safety and efficacy of PAE as a new treatment in BPO and explore risks surrounding its performance. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed. Medical databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, limited to English, peer-reviewed articles. Search terms included prostatic artery embolization, lower urinary tracts symptoms, minimally invasive therapies, interventional radiology prostate, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Articles were screened by two independent reviewers for content on development, methods, outcomes, and complications of PAE. RESULTS: Suitability of patients to undergo PAE depends on review of patient history, pre-procedure visualisation of appropriate vascular anatomy and clinical parameters. Despite this selection of candidates favourable for procedural success, PAE is not without risk of complications, some of which can significantly affect patient quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Although initial findings show promise regarding safety and efficacy of PAE in improving symptom and quality-of-life scores, further investigation is required to establish durability of effect and the appropriate use of this experimental modality. There is currently limited robust evidence for the beneficial outcomes of PAE. Long-term follow-up studies will add to the evidence base to help further assess the feasibility of this procedure as an alternative to TURP.
Authors: Sandeep Bagla; Cynthia P Martin; Arletta van Breda; Michael J Sheridan; Keith M Sterling; Dimitrios Papadouris; Kenneth S Rholl; John B Smirniotopoulos; Arina van Breda Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Tiago Bilhim; João Pisco; Hugo Rio Tinto; Lúcia Fernandes; Luís Campos Pinheiro; Marisa Duarte; José A Pereira; António G Oliveira; João O'Neill Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Christian Gratzke; Alexander Bachmann; Aurelien Descazeaud; Marcus J Drake; Stephan Madersbacher; Charalampos Mamoulakis; Matthias Oelke; Kari A O Tikkinen; Stavros Gravas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mao Qiang Wang; Li Ping Guo; Guo Dong Zhang; Kai Yuan; Kai Li; Feng Duan; Jie Yu Yan; Yan Wang; Hai Yan Kang; Zhi Jun Wang Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 2.264