Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 22, 2025
08:09
Vessel-sparing Excision and Primary Anastomosis
Published on: January 7, 2019
11.8K
Association between intravesical prostatic protrusion and clinical outcomes in prostatic artery embolization
Tom Boeken1, Alessandro Di Gaeta1, Nadia Moussa1
1Department of Vascular and Oncological Interventional Radiology, AP-HP, centre, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, 75015 Paris, France; Université de Paris, 75006 Paris, France.
Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging
|January 11, 2021
Summary
Intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) severity does not impact the effectiveness of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia symptoms. Patients with severe IPP experienced greater symptom relief after PAE.
Area of Science:
- Urology
- Interventional Radiology
- Medical Imaging
Background:
- Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
- Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is an effective minimally invasive treatment for BPH.
- Intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) is a radiological finding that may influence treatment outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the impact of intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) on clinical outcomes following PAE.
- To determine if IPP influences the efficacy of PAE in managing LUTS in BPH patients.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 160 patients undergoing PAE for LUTS between January 2017 and January 2019.
- Pre-treatment MRI was used to grade IPP (Grade 1: <5mm, Grade 2: 5-10mm, Grade 3: >10mm).
- International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QOL) questionnaires assessed symptoms at follow-up.
Main Results:
- No significant baseline IPSS differences were observed across IPP grades.
- Patients with severe IPP (Grade 3) showed a significantly greater reduction in IPSS compared to those with non-severe IPP (Grade 1 or 2) (P=0.02).
- Mean QOL score reduction was significantly higher in the severe IPP group (3.0) versus the non-severe IPP group (2.0) (P=0.02).
Conclusions:
- The degree of intravesical prostatic protrusion does not limit the efficacy of PAE.
- PAE is an effective treatment for LUTS in BPH patients regardless of IPP severity.
- IPP grading may help predict symptom relief after PAE.
