1. Coil Embolization Is Not Justified for Treating Patients with Veno-Occlusive Dysfunction: Case Series and Narrative Literature Review
- Author
-
Ko-Shih Chang, Cho-Hsing Chung, Yi-Kai Chang, Geng-Long Hsu, Mang-Hung Tsai, and Jeff SC Chueh
- Subjects
coil embolization ,coil cardiac perforation ,deep dorsal vein ,endovascular coiling ,erection-related vein ,penile venous stripping ,Science - Abstract
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.
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF