Prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic obstruction: assessment of safety and efficacy.

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.

Eating marshmallows reduces ileostomy output: a randomized crossover trial.

AIM: Anecdotally, many ostomates believe that eating marshmallows can reduce ileostomy effluent. There is a plausible mechanism for this, as the gelatine contained in marshmallows may thicken small bowel fluid, but there is currently no evidence that this is effective. METHOD: This was a randomized crossover trial. Adult patients with well-established ileostomies were included. Ileostomy output was measured for 1 week during which three marshmallows were consumed three times daily, and for one control week where marshmallows were not eaten. There was a 2-day washout period. Patients were randomly allocated to whether the control or intervention week occurred first. In addition, a questionnaire was administered regarding patient's subjective experience of their ileostomy function. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants were recruited; 28 completed the study. There was a median reduction in ileostomy output volume of 75 ml per day during the study period (P = 0.0054, 95% confidence interval 23.4-678.3) compared with the control week. Twenty of 28 subjects (71%) experienced a reduction in their ileostomy output, two had no change and six reported an increase. During the study period, participants reported fewer ileostomy bag changes (median five per day vs six in the control period, P = 0.0255). Twenty of 28 (71%) reported that the ileostomy effluent was thicker during the study week (P = 0.023). Overall 19 (68%) participants stated they would use marshmallows in the future if they wanted to reduce or thicken their ileostomy output. CONCLUSION: Eating marshmallows leads to a small but statistically significant reduction in ileostomy output.