Retrospective Study
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
Table 1 Baseline demographic, anatomic and clinical data of the two patient groups in this study (intentionally unilateral prostatic artery embolization group vs control)

IU-PAE (n = 13)
Control (n = 30)
P value
Age (mean ± SD, years)76.5 ± 8.271.8 ± 10.60.166
BMI (mean ± SD, kg/m2)28.7 ± 4.627.0 ± 2.80.300
PV (mean ± SD, mL)106.7 ± 43.892.8 ± 27.10.330
Grade of tortuosity (mean ± SD)2.2 ± 0.92.1 ± 0.80.736
Grade of atheroma (mean ± SD)1.5 ± 0.71.2 ± 0.60.360
LUTS, proportion of pts9/1322/300.779
IPSS (mean ± SD)26.0 ± 4.026.5 ± 3.90.708
IBC proportion of pts4/138/300.779
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 ± 20.2118.2 ± 22.6< 0.001a
Fluoroscopy time (mean ± SD, minutes)30.3 ± 10.647.3 ± 14.80.002a
DAP (mean ± SD, μGy∙m2) 9767.8 ± 5873.517891.5 ± 9087.10.004a
“PErFecTED” technique (proportion of pts)7/1314/300.667
Embo with 100-300 vs 300-500 (proportion of pts)10/323/70.984
MC advancement in contralateral side (proportion of pts)2/131/300.155
Table 3 Comparison of outcome parameters for the two groups (intentionally unilateral prostatic artery embolization group vs control)

IU-PAE (n = 13)
Control (n = 30)
P value
Percentage of prostatic infarction1 (mean ± SD, %)36.1 ± 16.033.1 ± 14.50.478
PV reduction2 (mean ± SD, %)28.0 ± 12.532.9 ± 9.60.065
IPSS reduction2 (mean ± SD, %)58.0 ± 16.356.6 ± 22.30.819
Clinical success rate2 (%)84.690.00.995
Complications3 - proportion of pts2/137/300.555