Multicenter Quantification of Radiation Exposure and Associated Risks for Prostatic Artery Embolization in 1476 Patients.

Background Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a safe, minimally invasive angiographic procedure that effectively treats benign prostatic hyperplasia; however, PAE-related patient radiation exposure and associated risks are not completely understood. Purpose To quantify radiation dose and assess radiation-related adverse events in patients who underwent PAE at multiple centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients undergoing PAE for any indication performed by experienced operators at 10 high-volume international centers from January 2014 to May 2021. Patient characteristics, procedural and radiation dose data, and radiation-related adverse events were collected. Procedural radiation effective doses were calculated by multiplying kerma-area product values by an established conversion factor for abdominopelvic fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Relationships between cumulative air kerma (CAK) or effective dose and patient body mass index (BMI), fluoroscopy time, or radiation field area were assessed with linear regression. Differences in radiation dose stemming from radiopaque prostheses or fluoroscopy unit type were assessed using two-sample t tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results A total of 1476 patients (mean age, 69.9 years ± 9.0 [SD]) were included, of whom 1345 (91.1%) and 131 (8.9%) underwent the procedure with fixed interventional or mobile fluoroscopy units, respectively. Median procedure effective dose was 17.8 mSv for fixed interventional units and 12.3 mSv for mobile units. CAK and effective dose both correlated positively with BMI (R2 = 0.15 and 0.17; P < .001) and fluoroscopy time (R2 = 0.16 and 0.08; P < .001). No radiation-related 90-day adverse events were reported. Patients with radiopaque implants versus those without implants had higher median CAK (1452 mGy [range, 900-2685 mGy] vs 1177 mGy [range, 700-1959 mGy], respectively; P = .01). Median effective dose was lower for mobile than for fixed interventional systems (12.3 mSv [range, 8.5-22.0 mSv] vs 20.4 mSv [range, 13.8-30.6 mSv], respectively; P < .001). Conclusion Patients who underwent PAE performed with fixed interventional or mobile fluoroscopy units were exposed to a median effective radiation dose of 17.8 mSv or 12.3 mSv, respectively. No radiation-related adverse events at 90 days were reported. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mahesh in this issue.

One-year outcomes after prostate artery embolization versus laser enucleation: A network meta-analysis.

Background: Although holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) is considered a size-independent procedure for treatment of an enlarged prostate, prostate artery embolization (PAE) is emerging as an alternative modality to treat moderate and large benign prostatic hyperplasia. This study aims to compare the early post-operative and short-term efficacy of PAE and HoLEP. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases were searched. Network meta-analysis was performed following PRISMA-N-guidelines. Post-operative parameters analysed include international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), post-void residual urine (PVR), maximal uroflow rate (Qmax) and serious adverse events (SAE). Random effects model calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). If 95%CI crossed the line of no effect (WMD = 0), evidence indicated no statistically significant difference between treatments compared. Results: Qualitative and quantitative syntheses included 20 and 18 studies with 1991 and 1606 patients, respectively. At 3 months, there was no statistically significant difference between PAE and HoLEP in IPSS score improvement [WMD: -2.21: 95%CI: (-10.20, 5.78), favouring PAE], QoL score improvement [WMD: -0.22:95%CI: (-1.75, 1.32), favouring PAE] and PVR improvement [WMD: 26.97: 95%CI: (-59.53, 113.48), favouring HoLEP]. However, PAE was found inferior to HoLEP for Qmax improvement [WMD: 8.47, 95%CI: (2.89, 14.05), favouring HoLEP]. At 1-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant was found between PAE and HoLEP for IPSS score improvement [WMD:6.03, 95%CI: (-1.30, 13.35)], QoL score improvement [WMD: 0.03, 95%CI: (-1.19, 1.25)], PVR improvement [WMD:4.11, 95%CI: (-32.31, 40.53)] and Qmax improvement [WMD:2.60, 95%CI: (-2.20, 7.41)] with all differences favouring HoLEP. PAE was superior to HoLEP for SAE [PAE vs. HoLEP-OR: 0.68, 95%CI: (0.25, 1.37)]. Conclusion: HoLEP was superior to PAE at 3 months for Qmax improvement. There was no significant difference in IPSS, QoL, PVR and Qmax improvement at 1 year between PAE and HoLEP. PAE was also associated with lesser SAE compared to HoLEP. Studies on the long-term outcome of PAE are needed to establish the durability of early outcomes after PAE.

Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization via Transradial Access versus Transfemoral Access.

PURPOSE: To compare prostatic artery embolization (PAE) via transradial access (TRA-PAE) versus transfemoral access (TFA-PAE) to assist access selection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Procedural outcomes and adverse events were evaluated in 998 patients who underwent PAE at a single center from April 2014 to August 2022; 821 (82%) underwent TRA-PAE (Group R) and 177 (18%) underwent TFA-PAE (Group F). Mean age and prostate size of Groups R and F were 69.2 years (SD ± 8.4) and 117.4 g (SD ± 63.1) and 75.2 years (SD ± 12.1) and 127.2 g (SD ± 83.6), respectively (P < .01 and P = .16; postpropensity matching: P = .38 and P = .35, respectively). Indications for PAE included lower urinary tract symptoms, acute or chronic urinary retention, and hematuria. Procedural and patient-specific metrics were reviewed. Technical success was defined as bilateral PAE. Adverse events were recorded according to the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) adverse events classification. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 798 (97.2%) patients in Group R and 165 (93.2%) patients in Group F. Mean procedural time, single- and continuous-rotation fluoroscopy time, dose area product, and air kerma were significantly lower in Group R than in Group F (P < .001). Moreover, 6 (0.7%) patients in Group R and 9 (5.5%) patients in Group F had access site ecchymoses, whereas 5 (0.6%) patients in Group R and 6 (3.6%) in Group F had access site hematomas. Two patients experienced transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) after TRA-PAE and recovered without intervention. Two occult radial artery occlusions were noted, but no patient experienced hand ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: In a large single interventional radiologist cohort, TRA-PAE demonstrated similar technical success to that of TFA-PAE with lower access site hemorrhagic complications and radiation requirements; however, TIA and occult radial artery occlusions remain a concern.

Complications associated with minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) for surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database review.

PURPOSE: MAUDE database houses medical device reports of suspected device-related complications received by Food and Drug Administration. In the present study we aim to evaluate the MAUDE database for reported complications of MIST procedures. METHODS: The database was queried using keywords: rezum, urolift, prostate embolization (PAE), transurethral needle ablation (TUNA), transurethral microwave therapy (TUMT), prostate stent and Temporarily Implanted Nitinol Device (iTIND) on 10/1/22 to extract information regarding device problems and procedure-related complications. Gupta classification system was used to stratify complications. Statistical analysis was performed to compare frequency of complications among MIST procedures. RESULTS: We found a total of 692 reports (Rezum-358, urolift-226, PAE-53, TUNA-31, TUMT-19, prostatic stent-4, and iTIND-1). Most complications related to device or users were minor (level 1 and 2) and there was no significant difference among various MIST procedures. The screen/system error was responsible for 93% and 83% aborted cases in Rezum and TUNA, respectively, and PAE showed 40% of device component detachment/fracture. Overall Urolift and TUMT were associated with statistically significant higher incidence of major (level 3 and 4) complications (23% and 21%, respectively) as compared with Rezum (7%). Most major complications needing hospitalization after Urolift included hematoma and hematuria with clots and those after Rezum included urinary tract infection and sepsis. Thirteen deaths were reported, mostly due to cardiovascular events, which were classified as not associated with the proposed treatment. CONCLUSION: MIST for BPH can occasionally cause significant morbidity. Our data should assist urologists and patients in shared decision-making process.

The short-to-midterm outcomes of geniculate artery embolization for mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review.

Background: Geniculate Artery Embolization (GAE) is a novel, minimally-invasive treatment for mild to moderate Osteoarthritis (OA) associated with musculoskeletal pain. Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of GAE in patients with mild to moderate OA of the knee using a Quantitative-analysis of the available literature. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for GAE-related studies. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed following PRISMA-guidelines. Quantitative-analysis was performed using windows based 'MedCalc-Statistical-Software version 19.6.1 (2020). Statistical analysis was performed in Stata-IC-13.1(Stata corp-USA). Quantitative-analysis was done using the random-effects model, and the Standardized-Mean-Differences (SMD) were calculated. Results: After a full-text review, 13 studies with 399 knees (345-patients) were included in the qualitative synthesis, 10 were included in the quantitative synthesis. The total WOMAC score improved by a [SMD (95% CI)] of 3.46 points (1.27, 5.65), 3.50 (1.28, 5.71), 3.77 (0.58, 6.96), 5.46 (1.59, 9.33), 2.96 (-0.93, 6.85) compared to baseline at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 months respectively. The VAS score improved by 2.06 (1.35, 2.76), 2.13 (1.39, 2.87), 2.36 (1.85, 2.90), 2.09 (0.91, 3.28) compared to baseline at 1, 3, 6, 12 months respectively. The Pain WOMAC score improved by SMD 2.97 (0.51, 5.43), 3.77 (0.58, 6.96), 2.27 (0.31, 4.22), 2.27 (0.31, 4.22) compared to baseline at 1, 3, 12, 24 months, respectively. Conclusion: There was a statistically significant change from baseline in all outcome measures after GAE. GAE is a safe and effective method for pain control in mild to moderate OA-associated knee pain in the short and medium term.

Two-year outcomes comparing Embosphere® microspheres versus Imipenem Cilastatin for genicular artery embolization in patients with moderate to severe knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Genicular artery embolization (GAE) is a novel technique and has the potential to provide midterm relief of pain for patients with mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis resistant to conservative management. This study compares the efficacy and safety of trisacryl gelatin microspheres to Imipenem/Cilastatin particles for GAE with 2 years of clinical follow-up. METHODS: In this retrospective study, eight patients with knee osteoarthritis (11 knees) who underwent GAE with 100-300 µm trisacryl gelatin microspheres particles were compared with six patients (nine knees) who underwent GAE with Imipenem/Cilastatin particles. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at 3-month and 24-month follow-ups and compared to baseline using the WOMAC questionnaire. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 796 days (range: 736-808). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome measures at the 3-month or 24-month follow-up. Both embolic materials resulted in a decrease in Pain WOMAC and Total WOMAC scores at 3 months (p < 0.05), and the effect of treatment on Pain WOMAC and Total WOMAC score reduction was sustained until the 24-month follow-up (p < 0.05). Minor events (Clavien-Dindo classification grade I) included transient cutaneous color change (n = 3) and transient leg numbness (n = 1) after embolization with trisacryl gelatin microspheres particles (p = 0.08). All minor adverse events resolved spontaneously. There were no major adverse events. CONCLUSION: One hundred to three hundred µm trisacryl gelatin microspheres particles can be considered for genicular artery embolization and is comparable to Imipenem/Cilastatin particles in pain reduction of moderate to severe knee osteoarthritis. A sustained effect is observed for up to 2 years of follow-up.

Operator Learning Curve for Prostatic Artery Embolization and Its Impact on Outcomes in 296 Patients.

PURPOSE: To define operator learning curve inflection points for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and their impact on technical efficiency, clinical outcomes, and adverse events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May 2013 and May 2021, 296 consecutive patients with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms, urinary retention, or gross hematuria from benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent PAE by an interventional radiologist without prior PAE-specific experience. Operator learning curves plotted procedure time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, and embolic endpoint data against sequential procedure number. Multiple regression analysis evaluated for improvements in these parameters, with segmented linear regression to detect learning curve inflection points. Linear and logistic regression evaluated for learning curve impacts on 6-month clinical outcomes and 90-day adverse events. RESULTS: No baseline patient characteristic varied over the series apart from decreasing pre-procedural gland volume (P < 0.01). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated experience-dependent improvements in procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume (P < 0.01), with corresponding learning curve inflection points at 76 (P < 0.01), 78 (P < 0.01), and 73 (P = 0.10) procedures. Embolic endpoints did not vary with experience (P > 0.05). Post-procedure reductions in International Prostate Symptom Score (21.5 ± 6.2 to 6.7 ± 4.7), Quality of Life score (4.5 ± 1.2 to 1.3 ± 1.2), post-void residual (190 ± 203 to 97 ± 148 mL), and gland volume (142 ± 97 to 76 ± 47 mL) were substantial (P < 0.01) but did not vary with experience (P > 0.05), nor did adverse event frequency/severity (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Operator technical efficiency plateaued after 73-78 PAE procedures. Clinical improvements were substantial and adverse event frequency/severity low, and neither varied with experience. Operators without prior PAE-specific experience may perform PAE safely and effectively from the outset. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2b, Cohort Study.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Technical Pearls.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a condition that primarily affects men between the fourth and seventh decades of life, occurring due to enlargement of the prostate which subsequently causes compression of the prostatic urethra causing chronic obstruction of the urinary outflow tract. BPH can cause significant quality-of-life issues such as urinary hesitancy, intermittency, decreased urinary stream, a sensation of incomplete emptying, dysuria, urinary retention, hematuria, and nocturia. Several medical and surgical treatment modalities are available for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms and other BPH-related sequela; however, increasingly prostate artery embolization is being utilized in this patient population. Technical demands for this procedure in this population can be significant. This article describes the optimal techniques, tricks, and advanced imaging techniques that can be used to achieve desired technical outcomes.

Effect of Prostate Artery Embolization on Erectile Function - A Single Center Experience of 167 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is an emerging therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). AIM: This retrospective study was conducted to assess the effect of prostate artery embolization (PAE) on erectile function in a cohort of patients with LUTS attributable to BPH at 3-months after the procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 167 patients who underwent PAE. Data collected included Sexual Health Inventory in Men (SHIM) scores at 3, 6, and 12 months post-PAE, in conjunction with the International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), Quality of Life (QoL) scores, and prostate volumes. Primary outcome was erectile function as assessed by SHIM scores at 3 months after PAE. An analysis was performed to identify patients with a ±5-point SHIM change to group them according to this minimum clinically significant difference in erectile function. Adverse events were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification. OUTCOMES: At 3 months following PAE, median IPSS decreased by 16.0 [IQR, 9.0-22.0] points, median QOL decreased by 4.0 [IQR, 2.0-5.0] points, and median prostate volume decreased by 33 g [IQR, 14-55]. RESULTS: Median SHIM score was 17.0 [IQR, 12.0-22.0] at baseline, 18.0 [IQR, 14.0-23.0] at 3 months [P = .031], 19.0 [IQR, 14.5-21.5] at 6 months [P = .106] and 20 [IQR, 16.0-24.0] at 12 months [P = .010] following PAE. In patients with no erectile dysfunction (ED) at baseline, 21% (n = 9) reported some degree of decline in erectile function post-PAE. However, 38% (n = 40) of patients who presented with mild-to-moderate ED reported improvement in their erectile function 3 months following PAE. Overall, the changes in baseline SHIM score were relatively small; 82% (n = 137) of patients did not have more than 5 points of change in their SHIM scores at 3 months following PAE. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our findings suggest PAE has no adverse impact on erectile function for most patients. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The study was performed at a single center with 1 operator's experience, and is retrospective with no control group. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that prostate artery embolization has no adverse effect on erectile function in the majority of patients with LUTS attributable to BPH at 3 months after the procedure. Bhatia S, Acharya V, Jalaeian H, et al., Effect of Prostate Artery Embolization on Erectile Function - A Single Center Experience of 167 Patients. J Sex Med 2022;19:594-602.

Safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of prostate as salvage procedure for persistent or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to bladder outlet obstruction after prior prostate artery embolization: a match analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of Holmium laser enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP) for management of persistent or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms after prior prostate artery embolization (PAE). We also evaluated histopathological changes in prostate after PAE. METHODS: Ten patients who underwent HoLEP after prior PAE were matched according to age, weight of resected prostate tissue, and anticoagulation status in 1:2 ratio with patients who underwent HoLEP without prior PAE by a researcher who was blinded to patient's outcome at the time of matching. Histopathological examination of prostate tissue was performed to look for changes related to prior PAE. Patient's demographics, perioperative parameters, and follow-up data were retrospectively compared. RESULTS: The median interval between PAE and HoLEP was 25 months [IQR 14.5-37.5]. Patients demographic were comparable in both groups. Intra-operatively plane of enucleation were well-maintained in spite of prior PAE. The differences in duration of surgery, enucleation efficiency, hemoglobin drop, duration of catheterization and hospital stay, and complications were statistically insignificant. Incidental prostate cancer was identified in 10% specimens from both groups. Post-PAE prostate specimens demonstrated evidence of remote-healed infarction represented by dense hyalinized paucicellur connective tissue with surrounding squamous metaplasia. There were no statistically significant differences in AUA symptom scores, maximum urine flow rate, post-void residual urine volume, and PSA at 3- and 6-month follow-up between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Plane of enucleation is well-maintained after prior PAE. Salvage HoLEP is safe and effective after previous PAE and provide outcome comparable with HoLEP as a primary procedure.

Voiding and Storage Domain-Specific Symptom Score Outcomes After Prostate Artery Embolization for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Urinary Retention.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize voiding and storage symptom domain-specific outcomes after prostate artery embolization (PAE) to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: Two hundred forty patients (age = 74.5 ± 8.6 years) underwent PAE between May 2013 and March 2020 at a single center for LUTS (n = 161) or urinary retention (n = 79). Total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS-t), voiding domain score (IPSS-v), storage domain score (IPSS-s), and Quality of Life score (QoL) were obtained pre-PAE for LUTS patients (IPSS-t = 21.7 ± 6.2, IPSS-v = 11.9 ± 4.3, IPSS-s = 9.6 ± 3.1, QoL = 4.5 ± 1.2), and post-PAE through 36 months (mean = 22.9 ± 15.2 months) for LUTS and retention patients. Mean relative changes in IPSS-t, IPSS-v, IPSS-s, and QoL were calculated for LUTS patients. Mean voiding or storage component scores were calculated for retention patients. RESULTS: For evaluable LUTS patients (n = 147), IPSS-t showed sustained substantial improvement through 36 months (6.3 ± 4.2-8.6 ± 7.6), as did QoL (1.1 ± 1.1-1.8 ± 1.5). One month after PAE, improvements in IPSS-v (69% ± 29%) were greater than in IPSS-s (46% ± 33%; P < .000001), and remained so through 36 months (68% ± 31% vs 53% ± 28%, P = .004). Among evaluable retention patients (n = 75), 84% passed voiding trials. Both IPSS-t (6.0 ± 3.9-8.2 ± 6.7) and QoL (0.9 ± 1.2-1.5 ± 1.6) remained low through 36 months. One month after PAE, mean IPSS-v component score (0.9 ± 1.3) was lower than mean IPSS-s component score (1.7 ± 1.4; P = .003) and remained so through 24 months (0.9 ± 1.2 vs 1.3 ± 1.1, P = .02), with similar trend at 36 months (0.7 ± 1.1 vs 1.1 ± 1.1, P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: PAE effectively treated BPH-related LUTS and retention. IPSS-v improved more than IPSS-s in LUTS patients, and remained lower in LUTS and retention patients through 36 months.

Effectiveness and Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms from Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Men with Concurrent Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in the setting of localized prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, institutional review board-approved study from December 2016 to June 2020 of 21 patients (median age, 72; range, 63-83 years) with moderate LUTS and localized PCa. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated at 6 and 12 weeks using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) improvement. Seventeen patients were scheduled to receive definitive radiotherapy (RT) after PAE; 13 patients completed RT. Short-term imaging signs of oncologic progression were evaluated at 6 and 12 weeks defined by at least one of the following on magnetic resonance imaging: increased Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of index lesion(s) to at least 4, new extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle involvement, or pelvic lymphadenopathy. Nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analysis. RESULTS: IPSS improved by a median of 12 (n = 19, P < .0001) and 14 (n = 14, P < .0001) at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively. QoL improved by a median of 2 (n = 19, P < .0001) and 3 (n = 3, P < .0001) at 6 and 12 weeks. Prostate volume decreased by a median of 24% (n = 19, P < .0001) and 36% (n = 12, P = .015) at 6 and 12 weeks. No patients demonstrated disease progression at 6 (n = 16) or 12 (n = 8) weeks by imaging. No patients experienced increased prostate-specific antigen after RT, grade ≥3 adverse events, or greater genitourinary toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: PAE is effective and safe for the treatment of men with LUTS from benign prostatic hyperplasia in the setting of concomitant, localized, non-obstructive PCa.

Prostatic Artery Embolization in Refractory Hematuria of Prostatic Origin.

Hematuria of prostatic origin has multiple etiologies including benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), iatrogenic urological trauma, prostate cancer, and radiation therapy. Hematuria secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia can occur because of the increased vascularity of the primary gland, itself, or because of the vascular re-growth following a transurethral resection of the prostate. Prostatic hematuria usually resolves with conservative measures; however, refractory hematuria of prostatic origin may require hospitalization with treatment with blood transfusions, repeated indwelling urinary catheterization, and continuous bladder irrigation. Prostate artery embolization is an emerging minimally invasive procedural therapy for men with BPH that was originally utilized for the treatment of refractory hematuria of prostatic origin . This article aims to summarize the currently available evidence around prostate artery embolization for the treatment of refractory hematuria of prostatic origin.

Current Debates Regarding Optimal Patient Evaluation and Procedural Technique for Prostatic Artery Embolization.

There are active debates surrounding patient evaluation and procedural techniques of prostate artery embolization. This review evaluates the available evidence on the value of urodynamics, the effect of prostate gland size, the benefits of pre- and intraprocedural cross-sectional imaging, the utility of a balloon-occlusion microcatheter, the differences among embolic particle sizes and types, and the merits of radial versus femoral arterial access.

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Brief Overview of Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Current State of Therapy.

As prostatic artery embolization is assuming an increasingly important role in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia, it is important for the practicing interventional radiologist to have a deep understanding of all aspects of the disease process and the available treatment options. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the pathophysiology, diagnosis and management options for benign prostatic hyperplasia with an emphasis on the surgical and medical treatments.

Prostate Arterial Anatomy: A Primer for Interventional Radiologists.

Identification of the prostatic arteries (PAs) is one of the most challenging aspects of prostate artery embolization for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia-associated lower urinary tract symptoms. Operators require a detailed understanding of the prostate arterial anatomy to ensure technical and clinical success with minimal complications. Due to substantial variability in internal iliac artery branch patterns and specifically the origin of the PA, we focus on 3 clinically relevant classification systems used to categorize the pelvic vasculature. These include classification systems to understand the internal iliac artery branching pattern, PA origin variation, and intraprostatic branching.

Prostate Artery Embolization - Adverse Events and Peri-Procedural Management.

As prostate artery embolization (PAE) for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia becomes more commonly performed, operator knowledge of the adverse events is essential to inform patient selection, patient preparation, and postprocedural management. The aim of this article is to discuss the incidence, presentation, and management of adverse effects after PAE.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Variant Origins and Collaterals.

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a minimally invasive treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia associated lower urinary tract symptoms. The prostatic arterial anatomy, origins and collaterals, are highly variable and can lead to technical pitfalls and suboptimal results during PAE. In this paper we aim to discuss the variant prostate artery origins and collateral circulation to provide a primer on relevant anatomy for interventional radiologists performing PAE.