ReviewCurrent urology reports2026
Prostatic Artery Embolization: A Contemporary Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Expanding Clinical Indications.
Review in Current urology reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewProstatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment for a spectrum of prostatic conditions. Supported by a growing body of randomized and observational evidence, PAE now occupies an established role in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and is increasingly applied for refractory prostatic bleeding and hematospermia. A structured review of PubMed, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE was performed with priority given to studies published from 2020 onward, including randomized controlled trials, prospective multicenter studies, large observational cohorts, and current guideline statements. Outcomes of interest included technical success, symptom improvement, urodynamic parameters, postvoid residual volume, hematuria resolution, retreatment rates, and adverse events. RECENT
findingsFor BPH-related LUTS, PAE produces meaningful and durable symptom improvement. However, it consistently demonstrates inferior urodynamic outcomes and higher long-term retreatment rates compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and holmium laser enucleation. PAE's advantages include lower periprocedural risk in medically high risk patients and early preservation of sexual and continence-related function. For refractory prostatic bleeding - including BPH-related, malignant, and post-procedural etiologies - retrospective and prospective series consistently report high technical success and clinically meaningful hemostasis, supporting its use in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who have failed transurethral surgery. Evidence for PAE in refractory hematospermia is limited to small case series and remains investigational. PAE is a safe, guideline-recognized treatment option for BPH that offers meaningful symptom relief with a favorable safety profile, though with less durable outcomes than transurethral surgery. It serves as a clinically valuable salvage or palliative option for refractory prostatic bleeding. Patient selection, shared decision-making with urology and interventional radiology, and realistic counseling about durability are essential to optimizing outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573863What 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.