TY - JOUR
T1 - Coil Embolization Is Not Justified for Treating Patients with Veno-Occlusive Dysfunction
T2 - Case Series and Narrative Literature Review
AU - Chang, Ko Shih
AU - Chung, Cho Hsing
AU - Chang, Yi Kai
AU - Hsu, Geng Long
AU - Tsai, Mang Hung
AU - Chueh, Jeff S.C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 by the authors.
PY - 2024/7
Y1 - 2024/7
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - coil cardiac perforation
KW - coil embolization
KW - deep dorsal vein
KW - endovascular coiling
KW - erection-related vein
KW - penile venous stripping
KW - veno-occlusive dysfunction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85199917083&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85199917083&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/life14070911
DO - 10.3390/life14070911
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85199917083
SN - 0024-3019
VL - 14
JO - Life
JF - Life
IS - 7
M1 - 911
ER -