Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Impact of pre-interventional magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) on prostatic artery embolization (PAE) regarding workflow, radiation dose, and clinical outcome.
Method: Retrospective evaluation of 259 patients (mean age 68 ± 9, range 41-92) with benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) undergoing PAE between January 2017 and December 2020. MRA was performed in 137 cases. In 122 patients, no pre-interventional MRA was performed. Origin of the PA, volumetry of the prostatic gland and ADC values were evaluated. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Quality of Life (QoL) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) were evaluated before and after PAE.
Results: Origin of the PA was identified in all cases. Significant differences regarding volume reduction (-20 ± 13 ml with MRA vs -17 ± 9 ml without MRA) and ADC value reduction were found (-78 ± 111 10 mm/s with MRA vs -45 ± 99 10 mm/s without MRA). PAE workflow was modified in 16 patients due to MRA findings. Radiation dose (5518.54 ± 6677.97 µGym with MRA vs 23963.50 ± 19792.25 µGym without MRA) and fluoroscopy times (19.35 ± 9.01 min. with MRA vs 27.45 ± 12.54 min. without MRA) significantly differed. IPSS reduction improved (-11 ± 8 points with MRA vs -7 ± 9 points without MRA, p < 0.001), while QOL (-2 ± 1 points with MRA and -2 ± 2 points without MRA) and IIEF (+2 ± 10 points with MRA and +1 ± 11 points without MRA) showed no significant differences (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: Pre-interventional MRA facilitates improved workflow and patient safety of PAE while reducing radiation dose and intervention time.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110236 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!