Uterine arteriovenous malformations are rare and the clinical features quite variable. Gynecologists and radiologists must be aware of this diagnostic possibility in order to indicate a fast and accurate treatment. The aim of the present paper is to present a case of uterine arteriovenous malformation acquired after trophoblastic gestational disease for which diagnosis was well established by means of color Doppler ultrasonography and correlation to magnetic angioresonance.

Keywords: Angiography, Doppler, Embolization, Ultrasonography, Uterus, Vascular malformation

OBJECTIVE: To assess the hemodynamic changes considered normal after transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS) placement and the efficacy of TIPS parameters suggestive of stenosis using Doppler sonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were prospectively evaluated from December, 2001 to March, 2003 after TIPS placement. Evaluations were performed 24 to 48 hours after the procedure and then at intervals of 30 days, three months, six months and one year using B mode, color Doppler, power Doppler and spectral Doppler in different TIPS related sites. Angiography was performed only to confirm Doppler findings and treatment. RESULTS: To date the only statistically significant parameters for diagnosis of TIPS stenosis were continuous flow pattern in the proximal third of TIPS and the velocity gradient between the two sites (p < 0.001). Different non-statistically significant parameters were also observed. CONCLUSION: Doppler sonography is an efficient tool for the diagnosis of shunt patency and TIPS related complications such as stenosis. However, it is necessary to study a larger number of patients in order to determine a group of parameters that would help in the follow-up of these patients, thus using portal angiography only for indicated treatment.

Keywords: Portal hypertension, Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, Ultrasound, Doppler ultrasound studies, Stents and prostheses

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.