RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The surgical landscape for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) has evolved with the introduction of Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies (MISTs), recognizing the impact of sexual function on patients' well-being, and prioritizing ejaculation-sparing approaches. METHODS: This systematic review explored ejaculation sparing after classic endoscopic procedures and MISTs (iTind, Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, and TPLA) and a literature search yielded 41 studies. RESULTS: While all procedures demonstrated efficacy in improving LUTS/BPH symptoms (IPSS, QoL, Qmax), a subset of studies evaluated ejaculatory function. Positive outcomes were noted, challenging the historical association of BPH surgeries with ejaculatory dysfunction. Variations in study design, patient cohorts, and limited long-term data present challenges. Notably, the lack of baseline specificity, use of alpha-blockers, and non-specific sexual function assessments underscore potential biases. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations, the review tentatively concluded that MISTs, including iTind, Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, and TPLA, appear comparable in sparing ejaculation. Long-term studies are essential to validate sustainability, and comparative research should assess trade-offs between MISTs and traditional surgeries. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and quality of life assessments will enhance future investigations, refining MISTs as standard therapeutic options for LUTS/BPH.
RESUMO
ABSTRACT: The increasing importance of treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), while avoiding side effects and maintaining sexual function, has allowed for the development of minimally invasive surgical therapies (MISTs). Recently, the European Association of Urology guidelines reported a paradigm shift from the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) to the management of nonneurogenic male LUTS. The aim of the present review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the most commonly used MISTs: ablative techniques such as aquablation, prostatic artery embolization, water vapor energy, and transperineal prostate laser ablation, and nonablative techniques such as prostatic urethral lift and temporarily implanted nitinol device (iTIND). MISTs are becoming a new promise, even if clinical trials with longer follow-up are still lacking. Most of them are still under investigation and, to date, only a few options have been given as a recommendation for use. They cannot be considered as standard of care and are not suitable for all patients. Advantages and disadvantages should be underlined, without forgetting our objective: treatment of LUTS and re-treatment avoidance.
RESUMO
Risk calculator (RC) combining PSA with other clinical information can help to better select patients at risk of prostate cancer (PCa) for prostate biopsy. The present study aimed to develop a new Pca RC, including MRI and bladder outlet obstruction parameters (BOOP). The ability of these parameters in predicting PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa: ISUP GG ≥ 2) was assessed by binary logistic regression. A total of 728 patients were included from two institutions. Of these, 395 (54.3%) had negative biopsies and 161 (22.11%) and 172 (23.6%) had a diagnosis of ISUP GG1 PCa and csPCa. The two RC ultimately included age, PSA, DRE, prostate volume (pVol), post-voided residual urinary volume (PVR), and PIRADS score. Regarding BOOP, higher prostate volumes (csPCa: OR 0.98, CI 0.97,0.99) and PVR ≥ 50 mL (csPCa: OR 0.27, CI 0.15, 0.47) were protective factors for the diagnosis of any PCa and csPCa. AUCs after internal validation were 0.78 (0.75, 0.82) and 0.82 (0.79, 0.86), respectively. Finally, decision curves analysis demonstrated higher benefit compared to the first-generation calculator and MRI alone. These novel RC based on MRI and BOOP may help to better select patient for prostate biopsy after prostate MRI.
