Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Patient Evaluation, Anatomy, and Technique for Successful Treatment.

Symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia is a common condition in the aging population that results in bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms and decreased quality of life. Patients often are treated with medication and offered surgery for persistent symptoms. Transurethral resection of the prostate is considered the traditional standard of care, but several minimally invasive surgical treatments also are offered. Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is emerging as an effective treatment option with few reported adverse effects, minimal blood loss, and infrequent overnight hospitalization. The procedure is offered to patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms and depressed urinary flow due to bladder outlet obstruction. Proper patient selection and meticulous embolization are critical to optimize results. To perform PAE safely and avoid nontarget embolization, interventional radiologists must have a detailed understanding of the pelvic arterial anatomy. Although the prostatic arteries often arise from the internal pudendal arteries, several anatomic variants and pelvic anastomoses are encountered. Prospective cohort studies, small randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses have shown improved symptoms after treatment, with serious adverse effects occurring rarely. This article reviews the basic principles of PAE that must be understood to develop a thriving PAE practice. These principles include patient evaluation, review of surgical therapies, details of pelvic arterial anatomy, basic principles of embolization, and an overview of published results. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2019.

Vessel sealing comparison: old school is still hip.

BACKGROUND: Ligation with either absorbable or non-absorbable sutures has been the traditional state of the art, but a proliferation of technology now offers a host of methods to close and divide vessels. Only limited data are available that objectively compare different vessel sealing methods. The objective of this study was to compare a broad variety of methods of surgical vessel closure in a reproducible, independent, standardized test-to-failure ex vivo pressure challenge. METHODS: Ten of the most common surgical sealing devices were represented in this study, including both mechanical and energy devices. Unfixed porcine carotid arteries were selected for testing. They were connected to a pump, and automated controlled infusion was initiated. Upon identification of a leak at the source of sealing, the maximum pressure in mmHg was logged. RESULTS: There were a total of 184 trials conducted using the 10 vessel sealing methods. The average burst pressure across all trials was 1100 mmHg with a range of 51.3-5171 mmHg. Suture-based methods displayed the highest average pressure until failure. Stapling methods showed the lowest burst pressures. All methods showed mean burst pressures above the "physiologically relevant" level of 250 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents an independent, reproducible, ex vivo comparison of multiple methods of surgical arterial closure. In these laboratory conditions, tests to failure demonstrated widely varying sealing strength, highly dependent on method. All hemostatic modalities tested are capable of securing vessels safely and well above physiologic blood pressures, while suture-based methods were significantly stronger than other mechanical methods or modern energy devices.