Initial Canadian Experience of Prostate Artery Embolization for Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Midterm Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to assess the midterm outcomes and safety of prostate artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: A single-center, retrospective review of PAE performed for BPH was performed. Validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) index, and International Index for Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaires were completed at baseline and at least 12 months post-procedure. Prostate imaging was performed preprocedure as well as 3 months and 12 months post-procedure to assess prostate volume (PV). Uroflowmetry was also performed at baseline and 12 months post-procedure to assess urine flow rate (Q max ) and post-void residual (PVR) volume. Adverse events were graded according to Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) guidelines. Results: Eighty male patients underwent the PAE procedure (mean age 69 years). Prostate volume decreased significantly from a mean volume 156 to 107 mL after 12 months post-procedure, commensurate with a mean reduction of 27.5% ( P < .05). Significant improvements were seen in IPSS (21.8 vs 10.5) and QoL (4.5 vs 2.0) from baseline to 12 months post-procedure ( P < .05). There was no significant change in IIEF-5 score. There was a significant reduction in PVR (202 vs 105 mL) and improvement in Q max (5.9 vs 10.0 mL/s) between baseline and 12 months post-procedure ( P < .05). No major complications occurred; 4 minor complications occurred (SIR grade A or B). Conclusion: Prostate artery embolization achieved a clinically and statistically significant prostate volume reduction, symptom and QoL improvement, and enhanced uroflowmetry parameters in patients with BPH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".