Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on clinical practice and healthcare professionals. We aimed to assess how interventional radiology services (IR services) were impacted by the pandemic and describe adaptations to services and working patterns across the first two waves. Methods An anonymous six-part survey created using an online service was distributed as a single-use web link to 7125 members of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe via email. Out of 450 respondents, 327 who completed the survey at least partially including 278 who completed the full survey were included into the analysis. Results Interventional radiologists (IRs) reported that the overall workload decreased a lot (18%) or mildly (36%) or remained stable (29%), and research activities were often delayed (30% in most/all projects, 33% in some projects). Extreme concerns about the health of families, patients and general public were reported by 43%, 34% and 40%, respectively, and 29% reported having experienced significant stress (25% quite a bit; 23% somewhat). Compared to the first wave, significant differences were seen regarding changes to working patterns, effect on emergency work, outpatient and day-case services in the second wave. A total of 59% of respondents felt that their organisation was better prepared for a third wave. A total of 19% and 39% reported that the changes implemented would be continued or potentially continued on a long-term basis. Conclusion While the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected IR services in terms of workload, research activity and emotional burden, IRs seem to have improved the own perception of adaptation and preparation for further waves of the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on clinical practice and healthcare professionals. We aimed to assess how interventional radiology services (IR services) were impacted by the pandemic and describe adaptations to services and working patterns across the first two waves.An anonymous six-part survey created using an online service was distributed as a single-use web link to 7125 members of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe via email. Out of 450 respondents, 327 who completed the survey at least partially including 278 who completed the full survey were included into the analysis.Interventional radiologists (IRs) reported that the overall workload decreased a lot (18%) or mildly (36%) or remained stable (29%), and research activities were often delayed (30% in most/all projects, 33% in some projects). Extreme concerns about the health of families, patients and general public were reported by 43%, 34% and 40%, respectively, and 29% reported having experienced significant stress (25% quite a bit; 23% somewhat). Compared to the first wave, significant differences were seen regarding changes to working patterns, effect on emergency work, outpatient and day-case services in the second wave. A total of 59% of respondents felt that their organisation was better prepared for a third wave. A total of 19% and 39% reported that the changes implemented would be continued or potentially continued on a long-term basis.While the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected IR services in terms of workload, research activity and emotional burden, IRs seem to have improved the own perception of adaptation and preparation for further waves of the pandemic.

To determine the pejorative predictive factors on oncologic outcomes of percutaneous MR-guided whole gland prostate cancer cryoablation (CA).Medical records of patients treated from 2009 to 2012, to assess medium-term oncologic outcomes, were reviewed. Prostate biopsies were performed in local recurrence suspicion (biochemical failure, MR follow-up failure).Among 18 patients, mean age of 72.6 (61-78), 2 (11 %) and 7 (38.9 %) biological and reported biopsy-proven local recurrence respectively with our initial technic of CA. Mean follow-up and recurrence were 56.3 (±21.7) and 20.7 (±13.9) months respectively. A previous treatment of prostate cancer (P=0.5), pre-treatment PSA (P=0.2), pre-treatment Gleason/ISUP score (P=0.4), nadir PSA post-CA (P=0.22) were not associated with recurrence. Bilateral positive cores appears as a pejorative predictive factor (P=0.04). However mean pre-treatment positive cores percentage, 25 (±16.5) in responding patients versus 40.7 (±25.2) in case of recurrence, and maximum percentage of cancer extent in each positive core, 10.6 (±9.3) in responding patients versus 18.7 (±16.5) in case of recurrence, seemed associated with local recurrence after prostate CA but our analysis wasn't able to find a difference (P=0.09 and P=0.3 respectively) due to a lack of power.Bilateral positive cores appears as a pejorative predictive factor. In our experience, important tumor volume seem to be a pejorative predictive factor for oncologic outcomes after PCA whereas treatment, PSA, Gleason/ISUP score, nadir PSA are not.4.

Ablative treatment (AT) rise is foreseen, validation of steps to insure good proceedings is needed. By looking over the process of the patient, this study evaluates the requirements and choices needed in every step of the management.We searched MEDLINEExplanations of AT proposal rather than partial nephrectomy or surveillance have to be discussed in a consultation shared by urologist and interventional radiologist. Per-procedure choices depend on predictable ballistic difficulties. High volume, proximity of the hilum or of a risky organ are in favor of general anesthesia, cryotherapy and computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI). Percutaneous approach should be privileged, as it seems as effective as the laparoscopic approach. Early and delayed complications have to be treated both by urologist and radiologist. Surveillance by CT/MRI insure of the lack of contrast-enhanced in the treated area. Patients and tumors criteria, in case of incomplete treatment or recurrence, are the key of the appropriate treatment: surgery, second session of AT, surveillance.AT treatments require patient's comprehension, excellent coordination of the partnership between urologist and radiologist and relevant choices during intervention.

Ablatives techniques for destroying in situ a tumoral process aim tissular necrosis by the application of several physical principles.We searched MEDLINEForty-seven articles were analyzed. We described ablative techniques and sorted them in thermal and non-thermal therapies according to the used physical principle and their frequency of use in the urological pathology.Percutaneous ablative therapies are mini-invasive techniques, which have an important role in tumors focal treatment. This article is a review of the ablative therapies and describes their physical principles, their equipment and their recent technological modifications, which have been developed to improve the clinical success of these techniques.