Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of outcome parameters for the two groups

From: Prostatic artery embolization performed in anteroposterior projections versus steep oblique projections: single centre retrospective comparative analysis

 

S-PAE (n = 34)

AP-PAE (n = 12)

P-value

Percentage of prostatic infarction a (mean ± SD,%)

32.2 ± 20.7

28.0 ± 11.7

0.510

PV reduction b (mean ± SD,%)

26.4 ± 15.4

33.0 ± 7.6

0.062

IPSS reduction b (mean ± SD,%)

58.1 ± 15.9

60.2 ± 16.0

0.740

PVR reduction b (mean ± SD,%)

65 ± 42

56 ± 50

0.638

Clinical success ratio b (%)

91.1 (n = 3)

91.6 (n = 1)

0.959

Complications c -proportion of pts

5/34

3/12

0.423

  1. SD standard deviation, PV prostate volume, IPSS international prostate symptom score, PVR post void residual
  2. acalculated 1 day post PAE
  3. bcalculated 3 months post PAE
  4. conly minor complications were observed