OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and imaging findings of lymphoma after liver transplantation in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors reviewed records and imaging studies of children submitted to liver transplantation in the period between 2000 and 2008 in a single institution. RESULTS: Among 241 children submitted to liver transplantation, with a mean follow-up period of 41.4 ± 26.4 months, 16 (6.6%) had lymphoma. The mean age of the patients who developed lymphoma at the moment of transplantation was lower than in children who did not develop malignancy (23.9 ± 18.9 versus 38.0 ± 48.9 months; p = 0.02). The time interval between liver transplantation and the diagnosis of lymphoma ranged from 6 to 103 months. Clinical and radiological presentation was variable and the abdomen was the most common location of the tumor (n = 13; 81.3%), followed by chest and head and neck (n = 4; 25.0% each). Imaging findings included adenopathy, mediastinal, pulmonary and mesenteric masses, bowel wall thickening and hepatic and renal nodules. Four children (25.0%) died because of complications of lymphoma. CONCLUSION: Lymphomas are relatively uncommon and potentially fatal complications that may occur any time after pediatric liver transplantation, presenting different clinical and imaging findings.

Keywords: Lymphoma; Hepatic transplantation; Pediatrics; Imaging diagnosis; Postoperative complications.

Objective: To describe the safety and efficacy of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with a markedly enlarged prostate. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study including 18 consecutive patients (mean age, 74 years) with benign prostatic hyperplasia, all with a prostate volume ≥ 200 cm³, who were enrolled to receive PAE for the treatment of moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms. Results: The PAE procedure was technically successful in 17 patients (94.4%). During follow-up, clinical failure (defined as an International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] ≥ 8) was observed in two (11.1%) of those 18 patients. At 3 months of follow-up, there was significant improvement over baseline in all relevant outcome measures: total IPSS (from 15.7 to 2.9); IPSS quality of life score (from 5.2 to 1.0); prostate specific antigen (from 11.4 to 1.82 ng/mL); peak urinary flow rate (from 7.45 to 18.6 mL/s); prostate volume (from 252.4 to 151.6 cm³); and post-void residual volume (from 143.7 to 28.3 mL)—p < 0.05 for all. Of the 18 patients, one (5.6%) presented detachment of prostate tissue and self-limited hematuria, which did not require specific treatment. Conclusion: In patients with a markedly enlarged prostate, PAE proved to be safe and effective, resulting in significant improvements in clinical, imaging, and urodynamic parameters.

Keywords: Prostate/blood supply; Embolization, therapeutic; Prostatic hyperplasia/diagnostic imaging; Lower urinary tract symptoms; Severity of illness index; Quality of life.

The aim of this study was to compare virtual reality simulation with other methods of teaching interventional radiology. We searched multiple databases—Cochrane Library; Medline (PubMed); Embase; Trip Medical; Education Resources Information Center; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Scientific Electronic Library Online; and Latin-American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature—for studies comparing virtual reality simulation and other methods of teaching interventional radiology. This systematic review was performed in accordance with the criteria established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration. Eligible studies were evaluated by using the quality indicators provided in the BEME Guide No. 11 and the Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation. After the eligibility and quality criteria had been applied, five randomized clinical trials were included in the review. The Kirkpatrick level of impact varied among the studies evaluated, three studies being classified as level 2B and two being classified as level 4B. Among the studies evaluated, there was a consensus that virtual reality aggregates concepts and is beneficial for the teaching of interventional radiology. Although the use of virtual reality has been shown to be effective for skill acquisition and learning in interventional radiology, there is still a lack of studies evaluating and standardizing the employment of this technology in relation to the numerous procedures that exist within the field of expertise.

Keywords: Radiology, interventional; Virtual reality; Education, medical; Simulation training.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and safety of protective embolization during prostatic artery embolization, as well as to discuss its clinical relevance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study including 39 patients who underwent prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia between June 2008 and March 2018. Follow-up evaluations, performed at 3 and 12 months after the procedure, included determination of the International Prostate Symptom Score, a quality of life score, and prostate-specific antigen levels, as well as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and uroflowmetry. RESULTS: Protective embolization was performed in 45 arteries: in the middle rectal artery in 19 (42.2%); in the accessory internal pudendal artery in 11 (24.4%); in an internal pudendal artery anastomosis in 10 (22.2%); in the superior vesical artery in four (8.9%); and in the obturator artery in one (2.2%). There was one case of nontarget embolization leading to a penile ulcer, which was attributed to reflux of microspheres to an unprotected artery. There were no complications related to the protected branches. All of the patients showed significant improvement in all of the outcomes studied (p < 0.05), and none reported worsening of sexual function during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Protective embolization can reduce nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization without affecting the results of the procedure. In addition, no adverse events other than those expected or previously reported were observed. Therefore, protective embolization of pudendal region is safe.

Keywords: Prostate; Prostatic hyperplasia; Embolization, therapeutic/methods; Erectile dysfunction.