Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Radiol. Sep 28, 2024; 16(9): 380-388
Published online Sep 28, 2024. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v16.i9.380
Published online Sep 28, 2024. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v16.i9.380
Table 2 Comparison of technical and radiation dose-related features for the two groups (intentionally unilateral prostatic artery embolization group vs control)
IU-PAE (n = 13) | Control (n = 30) | P value | |
Operation time (mean ± SD, minutes) | 64.0 ± 20.2 | 118.2 ± 22.6 | < 0.001a |
Fluoroscopy time (mean ± SD, minutes) | 30.3 ± 10.6 | 47.3 ± 14.8 | 0.002a |
DAP (mean ± SD, μGy∙m2) | 9767.8 ± 5873.5 | 17891.5 ± 9087.1 | 0.004a |
“PErFecTED” technique (proportion of pts) | 7/13 | 14/30 | 0.667 |
Embo with 100-300 vs 300-500 (proportion of pts) | 10/3 | 23/7 | 0.984 |
MC advancement in contralateral side (proportion of pts) | 2/13 | 1/30 | 0.155 |
- Citation: Moschouris H, Stamatiou K. Intentionally unilateral prostatic artery embolization: Patient selection, technique and potential benefits. World J Radiol 2024; 16(9): 380-388
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v16/i9/380.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v16.i9.380