Chang, Ko-ShihKo-ShihChangChung, Cho-HsingCho-HsingChungYI-KAI CHANGHsu, Geng-LongGeng-LongHsuTsai, Mang-HungMang-HungTsaiSHIH-CHIEH CHUEH2024-08-122024-08-122024-07-22https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/720193Herein, we explore whether coil embolization (CE) is effective in treating veno-occlusive dysfunction (VOD). We present five cases with seven CE episodes and a narrative literature review. From 2013 to 2018, refractory impotence prompted five men to seek penile vascular stripping (PVS), although seven CE episodes were included. All received dual cavernosography in which erection-related veins and VOD were documented. PVS entailed the venous stripping of one deep dorsal vein and two cavernosal veins. The abridged five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score system and the erection hardness scale (EHS) were used, and yearly postoperative follow-ups were conducted via the Internet. Using Pub Med, a narrative literature review was performed on CE treatment for VOD or varicocele. Inserted coils were scattered along the erection-related veins, including the deep dorsal veins (n = 4), periprostatic plexus (n = 5), iliac vein (n = 5), right pulmonary artery (n = 2), left pulmonary artery (n = 2), and right ventricle (n = 1). PVS resulted in some improvements in the IIEF-5 score and EHS scale. Six articles highly recommend CE treatment for VOD. All claimed it is a minimally invasive effective treatment for varicocele. CE is not justified as a VOD treatment, regardless of its viability in the treatment of varicocele.encoil cardiac perforationcoil embolizationdeep dorsal veinendovascular coilingerection-related veinpenile venous strippingveno-occlusive dysfunction[SDGs]SDG3[SDGs]SDG5journal article10.3390/life1407091139063664