ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Promising Minimally Invasive Option Emerging in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Obstruction: Prostatic Artery Embolization.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), offering clinically meaningful symptom improvement with a favorable perioperative safety and sexual function profile. This narrative review synthesizes the current evidence on PAE relative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP), and other minimally invasive surgical treatments (MISTs). PAE generally offers a more favorable perioperative safety profile and shorter recovery time, at the cost of higher reintervention rates. PAE improves lower urinary tract symptoms, quality of life, and urinary flow; however, the magnitude of improvement is generally smaller than that observed in comparative studies with TURP and HoLEP. At the same time, PAE is consistently associated with fewer perioperative complications, shorter recovery time, and a significantly higher preservation of ejaculation function. Reintervention rates after PAE are significantly higher than those after TURP, reaching approximately one in five patients at 2 years and nearly half at 5 years in long-term randomized follow-up, suggesting limited long-term durability compared with resective surgery. This review summarizes current patient selection criteria, anatomic and technical considerations, embolization material choices, and clinical outcomes, and also presents comparative data with TURP, HoLEP, and GreenLight photoselective vaporization. Emerging technologies, including imaging guidance and AI-assisted planning, may further optimize patient selection and procedural consistency, but longer-term comparative trials and standardized protocols are needed. Overall, PAE offers an option for carefully selected patients who prioritize functional preservation or are at high surgical risk, with the added disadvantage of lower long-term durability compared to standard surgical approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.