Coil Embolization Is Not Justified for Treating Patients with Veno-Occlusive Dysfunction: Case Series and Narrative Literature Review

Ko Shih Chang, Cho Hsing Chung, Yi Kai Chang, Geng Long Hsu, Mang Hung Tsai, Jeff S.C. Chueh

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章同行評審

2 引文 斯高帕斯(Scopus)

摘要

Introduction: Herein, we explore whether coil embolization (CE) is effective in treating veno-occlusive dysfunction (VOD). We present five cases with seven CE episodes and a narrative literature review. Methods: From 2013 to 2018, refractory impotence prompted five men to seek penile vascular stripping (PVS), although seven CE episodes were included. All received dual cavernosography in which erection-related veins and VOD were documented. PVS entailed the venous stripping of one deep dorsal vein and two cavernosal veins. The abridged five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score system and the erection hardness scale (EHS) were used, and yearly postoperative follow-ups were conducted via the Internet. Using Pub Med, a narrative literature review was performed on CE treatment for VOD or varicocele. Results: Inserted coils were scattered along the erection-related veins, including the deep dorsal veins (n = 4), periprostatic plexus (n = 5), iliac vein (n = 5), right pulmonary artery (n = 2), left pulmonary artery (n = 2), and right ventricle (n = 1). PVS resulted in some improvements in the IIEF-5 score and EHS scale. Six articles highly recommend CE treatment for VOD. All claimed it is a minimally invasive effective treatment for varicocele. Conclusions: CE is not justified as a VOD treatment, regardless of its viability in the treatment of varicocele.
原文英語
文章編號911
期刊Life
14
發行號7
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 7月 2024

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • 生態學、進化論、行為學與系統學
  • 一般生物化學,遺傳學和分子生物學
  • 空間與行星科學
  • 古生物學

指紋

深入研究「Coil Embolization Is Not Justified for Treating Patients with Veno-Occlusive Dysfunction: Case Series and Narrative Literature Review」主題。共同形成了獨特的指紋。

引用此