Radiation Exposure during Prostatic Artery Embolization: A Single Institution Review
- PMID: 36719935
- DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001662
Radiation Exposure during Prostatic Artery Embolization: A Single Institution Review
Abstract
Prostate artery embolization is a minimally invasive treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia, and imaging is indispensable for the technical success of this procedure; however, imaging is a major source of radiation exposure for patients and healthcare providers. Radiation emission during prostate artery embolization procedures at a single institution was evaluated to determine radiation exposure with the goal to work toward minimizing exposure. All patients at a single institution that underwent outpatient unilateral/bilateral prostate artery embolization between 4 January 2019 and 16 November 2021 were retrospectively evaluated; data collected included body mass index, prostate volume, and indications for prostate artery embolization. Technical parameters recorded were air kerma, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, number of acquisitions, and intra-procedural imaging modalities. Fisher's t-test, ANOVA, and chi-square analyses were used as appropriate for statistical analysis (P < 0.05). Overall, 56 patients were included in the study. Body mass index (obesity; P = 0.0017) was a significant predictor of increased air kerma; prostate size and bilateral vs. unilateral prostate artery embolization were not significantly associated with increased air kerma despite the number of acquisitions being significantly different between bilateral and unilateral embolization (P = 0.0064). When evaluating radiation exposure during prostate artery embolization, increased body mass index significantly predicted increased air kerma. Contrary to the literature, the extent of embolization (bilateral vs. unilateral) was not associated with increased air kerma regardless of higher acquisitions and procedure time associated with bilateral prostate artery embolization. Increased radiation protection efforts should be considered for patients with higher body mass index to protect patients and practitioners.Health Phys. 124(0):000-000; 2023.
Copyright © 2023 Health Physics Society.
Conflict of interest statement
A. M. Devane has been a paid speaker for Johnson and Johnson and is a consultant with Boston Scientific and Guerbet. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Abt D, Schmid HP, Speakman MJ. Reasons to consider prostatic artery embolization. World Urol 39:2301–2306; 2021. DOI:10.1007/s00345-021-03601-z. - DOI
-
- Abt D, Lyatoshinsky P, Schmid HP, Müllhaupt G. Prostatic artery embolisation: do we still need it and for whom?Eur Urol Focus 8:384–387; 2022. DOI:10.1016/j.euf.2022.04.005. - DOI
-
- Andrade G, Khoury HJ, Garzón WJ, Dubourcq F, Bredow MF, Monsignore LM, Abud DG. Radiation exposure of patients and interventional radiologists during prostatic artery embolization: a prospective single-operator study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 28:517–521; 2017. DOI:10.1016/j.jvir.2017.01.005. - DOI
-
- Barral M, Gardavaud F, Lassalle L, Ammar MB, Najdawi M, Razakamanantsoa L, Renard-Penna R, Cussenot O, Cornelis FH. Limiting radiation exposure during prostatic arteries embolization: influence of patient characteristics, anatomical conditions, and technical factors. Eur Radiol 31:6471–6479. 2021. DOI:10.1007/s00330-021-07844-7. - DOI
-
- Bürckenmeyer F, Diamantis I, Kriechenbauer T, Lehmann T, Franiel T, Malouhi A, Grimm MO, Teichgräber U, Aschenbach R. Prostatic artery embolization: influence of cone-beam computed tomography on radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast media use. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 44:1089–1094; 2021. DOI:10.1007/s00270-021-02787-4. - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
