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