| Literature DB >> 33245065 |
Antonio Arrichiello1, Salvatore Alessio Angileri2, Giorgio Buccimazza3, Francesco Di Bartolomeo4, Letizia Di Meglio5, Alessandro Liguori6, Martina Gurgitano7, Anna Maria Ierardi8, Maurizio Papa9, Aldo Paolucci10, Gianpaolo Carrafiello11.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: High-flow priapism is a persistent partial penile tumescence, related to high flow arterial blood into the corpora. In the treatment of high flow priapism, super-selective embolization is considered treatment of choice when conservative treatment fails as reported in the "EAU Guidelines on Priapism", but there are only few series reporting the outcome, the efficacy of different embolic materials and these studies are uncontrolled and relatively small.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33245065 PMCID: PMC8023077 DOI: 10.23750/abm.v91i10-S.10233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Biomed ISSN: 0392-4203
Figure 1.Detection of fistula on Colour Doppler examination: it is a hypoechoic area surrounded by echogenic tissue. Subsequently the Power Doppler shows a venous base flow with arterial peaks
Figure 2.Contrast-enhanced T1 images on axial and coronal plane that show arterial enhancement of the left cavernous body because of the presence of arteriocavernosal fistula.
Figure 3.T2 images on sagittal and axial plane that show flow void in the left cavernous body.
Collection of data from our selected case series
| Ciampalini Et al. 2002 | 9 | 36 | CDUS | NA | Absorbable syntetic Clot | 100% | 66% | No | 3(33%) | 2(clot) 1(surgical ligature) | 41 | 20% |
| Gorich Et al. 2002 | 6 | 16 | CDUS | 2 Monolateral | 3 Gelatin Sponge | 100% | 83% | No | 1(17%) | 1 (microcoil) | 11.8 | 0 |
| Bertolotto Et al. 2003 | 9 | 29 | CDUS | 8monlateral | PVA beads | 100% | 56% | No | 4(44%) | 3 (PVA) | NA | 1(11%) |
| Savoca Et al.2004 | 15 | 32 | CDUS | 13monolateral | PVA beads | 93% | 73% | 4 (27%) bruising | 4(27%) | 3 (PVA) | 55 | 1(7%) |
| Bartsh Et al. 2004 | 6 | NA | CDUS | 3monolat | Gelatin Sponge | 100% | 83% | NA | 1(17%) | 1(vasospasm) | 48 | 0 |
| Sullivan Et al. 2006 | 5 | 31 | CDUS | 5 monolateral | 2 Gelfoam | 100% | 60% | NA | 2(40%) | 2(gelfoam+microcoil) | 12 | 1(20%) |
| Kim Et al. 2007 | 27 | 39 | CDUS | 16monolateral | 12 Gelfoam | 100% | 89% | No | 3 (11%) | 2 (1 autologous clot, 1 gelfoam) | 13 | 7(26%) |
| Liu Et al. 2008 | 8 | 33 | CDUS | 7 monolateral | 2 gelfoam | 100% | 75% | NA | 2 (25%) | 2 (microcoils) | 18 | 2(25%) |
| Cantasdemir | 7 | 10 | CDUS | 7 monolater | 7 autol clot | 100% | 85% | No | 2 (29%) | 2 (aut clot) | 72 | 0 |
| Pei Et al.2018 | 16 | 24 | CDUS | 15monolateral | 10 Microcoil | 100% | 94% | No | 1 (6%) | 1(microcoil+ | 8 | 2(13%) |
| De Magistris Et al.2019 | 9 | 33 | CDUS | 5 monolateral | 6 Microcoils | 100% | 78% | No | 2 (22%) (Microcoil monolaterl) | 2 MicroCoil | 24 | 1(11%) |
| Total/Mean | 117 | 30 | CDUS | 81monolateral | See Tab2 | 99% | 80% | No | 25(21%) | 25 (4 surgery) | 30 | 17(15%) |
*Recurrence rate and type of embolization performed **Type of reintervention and type of used material
Subgroup analysis of different embolization materials. AE= Adverse events. RR= Recurrence Rate
| PVA (300/350-500 o 500-700) | 27 | 26(96%) | 19(70%) | No | 8(29%) | 8 | 2 (7%) |
| Microcoils | 27 | 27(100%) | 21(78%) | No | 6(22%) | 5 | 5(19%) |
| Gel-foam | 23 | 23(100%) | 20(87%) | No | 3(13%) | 1 | 4(17%) |
| Autologous Clot | 29 | 29(100%) | 21(72%) | No | 8(28%) | 5 | 5(17%) |
Figure 4.Angiography pre and post embolization with microcoils.