No abstract

No abstract

The membership of the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) Standards of Practice Committee represents experts in a broad spectrum of interventional procedures from the private and academic sectors of medicine. Generally, Standards of Practice Committee members dedicate the vast majority of their professional time to performing interventional procedures; as such, they represent a valid broad expert constituency of the subject matter under consideration for standards production.Technical documents specifying the exact consensus and literature review methodologies as well as the institutional affiliations and professional credentials of the authors of this document are available upon request from SIR, 3975 Fair Ridge Dr., Suite 400 N., Fairfax, VA 22033. METHODOLOGYSIR produces its Standards of Practice documents using the following process. Standards documents of relevance and timeliness are conceptualized by the Standards of Practice Committee members. A recognized expert is identified to serve as the principal author for the standard. Additional authors may be assigned dependent upon the magnitude of the project.An in-depth literature search is performed using electronic medical literature databases. Then, a critical review of peer-reviewed articles is performed with regard to the study methodology, results, and conclusions. The qualitative weight of these articles is assembled into an evidence table, which is used to write the document such that it contains evidence-based data with respect to content, rates, and thresholds (Fig E1 and Table E1, available online at www.jvir.org).When the evidence of literature is weak, conflicting, or contradictory, consensus for the parameter is reached by a minimum of 12 Standards of Practice Committee members using a modified Delphi consensus method (Appendix A). For purposes of these documents, consensus is defined as 80% Delphi participant agreement on a value or parameter.The draft document is critically reviewed by the Standards of Practice Committee members by telephone conference calling or face-to-face meeting. The finalized draft from the Committee is sent to the SIR membership for further input/criticism during a 30-day comment period. These comments are discussed by the Standards of Practice Committee, and appropriate revisions are made to create the finished standards document. Prior to its publication, the document is endorsed by the SIR Executive Council.

No abstract

Overall, UAE has a significantly lower rate of major complications relative to surgery, but it comes at the cost of increased risk of reintervention in the future. Educating patients about the rate and types of complications of UAE versus surgery, as well as the potential for reintervention, should help the patient and clinician come to a reasoned decision.

This suggests that PAE is effective in treating LUTS in the short and intermediate term.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE PURPOSE We aimed to compare local and metastatic recurrence of small renal masses primarily treated by cryoablation or microwave ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODSThe MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PUBMED databases were searched to review the treatment of small renal masses with cryoablation or microwave ablation. Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTSFifty-one studies representing 3950 kidney lesions were analyzed. No differences were detected in the mean patient age (P = 0.150) or duration of follow-up (P = 0.070). The mean tumor size was significantly larger in the microwave ablation group compared with the cryoablation group (P = 0.030). There was no difference between microwave ablation and cryoablation groups in terms of primary effectiveness (93.75% vs. 91.27%, respectively; P = 0.400), cancer-specific survival (98.27% vs. 96.8%, respectively; P = 0.470), local tumor progression (4.07% vs. 2.53%, respectively; P = 0.460), or progression to metastatic disease (0.8% vs. 0%, respectively; P = 0.120). Patient age was predictive of overall complications in the multivariate analysis (P = 0.020). Local tumor progression with cryoablation was predicted by the mean follow-up duration using univariate (P = 0.009) and multivariate regression (P = 0.003). Clear cell and angiomyolipoma were more frequent in the microwave ablation group (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.03328, respectively), and papillary, chromophobe, and oncocytoma were more frequent in the cryoablation group (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.0004, respectively). Open access was used more often in the microwave ablation group than in the cryoablation group (12.20% vs. 1.04%, respectively; P < 0.0001), and percutaneous access was used more frequently in the cryoablation group than in the microwave ablation group (88.64% vs. 37.20%, respectively; P = 0.0021). CONCLUSIONThere is no difference in local or metastatic recurrence between cryoablation-and microwave ablation-treated small renal masses.

No abstract