I had PAE, and on the 7th day I felt the result and it was great. My steam was the strongest in 30 years. Some pain when urinating on day 3 and 4 but it was well worth it. I'm 75. Get it done.
In the real world, if a man in his mid-seventies is at the stage where he needs a procedure doesn’t the minimum invasive PAE make the most sense? No grinding, laser blasting, or steam blasting of tissue and the need to be in the hospital dreading the catheter removal. The PAE offers the opportunity to opt for the aforementioned procedures down the road if needed but seriously there’s the chance many men would not live long enough to take on another procedure. I would think Medicare and supplemental health insurance programs would be jumping with joy not having to pay the cost of invasive procedures and a hospital room.
I totally agree with your assessment, I'm a 65 year old male with the typical LUTS symptoms. I would definitely opt for this procedure as opposed to the more invasive procedure like TURP. No bleeding, catheter and possible risks of infection and readmission to the hospital.
I had done PAE Embolization last year ,prostrate size was reduce from 40 CC to 8 CC with in two months, but after the six months the difficulties of prostate was comeback unfortunately ,size remain small after PAE, urine flow was fine, pain after ejaculation was still persist ,best method was my experience ,don't try PAE it can cause Narcosis, golden standard was TRUP
It’s not clear from this presentation whether apples might be being compared to a fruit basket. The problem with comparing PAE to other treatments is that PAE is not standardized, e.g., with respect to bead size and other implantables; plus its efficacy is highly dependent on the skill and diligence of the practitioner, e.g., in meticulously tracking down collaterals. If collaterals are missed, the treatment will be ineffective. And if the bead size is not optimal, there could be migration. Before attempting to compare PAE, it would be better to compare a wide range of PAE practices in order to quantify how such variables affect outcomes. Only then, after having ascertained the optimal PAE training and procedures, compare that with other treatments. Otherwise, what have we really learned?
![Quando Rondo - Life Goes On [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eIf3fhMXAow/mqdefault.jpg)
I had PAE, and on the 7th day I felt the result and it was great. My steam was the strongest in 30 years. Some pain when urinating on day 3 and 4 but it was well worth it. I'm 75. Get it done.
In the real world, if a man in his mid-seventies is at the stage where he needs a procedure doesn’t the minimum invasive PAE make the most sense? No grinding, laser blasting, or steam blasting of tissue and the need to be in the hospital dreading the catheter removal. The PAE offers the opportunity to opt for the aforementioned procedures down the road if needed but seriously there’s the chance many men would not live long enough to take on another procedure. I would think Medicare and supplemental health insurance programs would be jumping with joy not having to pay the cost of invasive procedures and a hospital room.
The question now is PAE or aquablation, can you give me your opinion? Aquablation seems to be really good with no side effects.
I am a man in his mid 70s with BPH, and I am leaning towards PAE for all the reasons you mention.
I totally agree with your assessment, I'm a 65 year old male with the typical LUTS symptoms. I would definitely opt for this procedure as opposed to the more invasive procedure like TURP. No bleeding, catheter and possible risks of infection and readmission to the hospital.
I had done PAE Embolization last year ,prostrate size was reduce from 40 CC to 8 CC with in two months, but after the six months the difficulties of
prostate was comeback unfortunately ,size remain small after PAE, urine flow was fine, pain after ejaculation was still persist ,best method was my
experience ,don't try PAE it can cause Narcosis, golden standard was TRUP
So with my BPH, I have a Median Lobe. Is PAE even an option having a Median Lobe?
It’s not clear from this presentation whether apples might be being compared to a fruit basket. The problem with comparing PAE to other treatments is that PAE is not standardized, e.g., with respect to bead size and other implantables; plus its efficacy is highly dependent on the skill and diligence of the practitioner, e.g., in meticulously tracking down collaterals. If collaterals are missed, the treatment will be ineffective. And if the bead size is not optimal, there could be migration. Before attempting to compare PAE, it would be better to compare a wide range of PAE practices in order to quantify how such variables affect outcomes. Only then, after having ascertained the optimal PAE training and procedures, compare that with other treatments. Otherwise, what have we really learned?
This is why I think with time the standardization of PAE will be important to ascertaining its full and predictable efficacy.