Initial outcomes and surgical techniques of prostatic urethral lift for benign prostatic hyperplasia in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: The prostatic urethral lift (PUL) has been used as a minimally invasive surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) since April 2022 in Japan. This study evaluated the initial outcomes and surgical techniques of PUL for BPH. METHODS: In this prospective, single-center study, indications were based on the proper use guidelines for PUL in Japan. Preoperative patient status, postoperative progress at 1 and 3 months, and perioperative complications were evaluated. The surgical technique was changed twice, and the subgroup analysis and technique were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 50 patients who underwent surgeries performed by a single surgeon, the median age and prostate volume were 71 years and 42.0 mL, respectively. Furthermore, the median operative time and number of implants used were 20 min and 5, respectively. No postoperative fever or severe hematuria requiring reoperation occurred. All patients were discharged from the hospital the day following the PUL, as scheduled. Postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life score, maximum flow rate, and postvoid residual volume at 1 and 3 months were significantly improved compared with the preoperative values. A significant improvement in maximum flow rate was observed in the subgroup analysis from 1 month postoperatively in the group with an anterior channel creation focus. CONCLUSIONS: PUL is effective and safe in cases with prostate volumes of <100 mL. Lifting the bladder neck is important for opening an anterior prostatic urethral channel and improving urinary function during the early postoperative period.

Real-world short-term outcomes of prostate urethral lift in Japan: A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We report the first prospective trial of prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia in Japan. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at a single institution and included patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent prostatic urethral lift based on the Japanese surgical indication. The primary efficacy endpoint was reduced international prostatic symptoms score in the early postoperative period after prostatic urethral lift. To assess efficacy, international prostatic symptoms score, quality of life, sexual health inventory for men, and uroflowmetry were evaluated 2 weeks before, 2 weeks after, and 6 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: We enrolled 120 elderly men. The patients experienced significantly reduced international prostatic symptoms scores from 15 at the baseline to 13 at 2 weeks, and to 10 at 6 weeks, respectively. The peak flow rates did not change significantly at any time point. Three patients had serious adverse events of grade 3a in the Clavien-Dindo classification. Four patients were evaluated for sexual function, and none had ejaculatory dysfunction. CONCLUSION: In the Japanese population, prostatic urethral lift is reliably performed under local anesthesia and rapidly improves symptoms.

Comparative efficacy and safety of prostatic urethral lift vs prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) by means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Web of Science from inception to March 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PUL or PAE with either transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or sham procedures as control interventions. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed to pool the data on direct and indirect comparisons between interventions using STATA 14. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 675 participants were included in our network meta-analysis. Quantitative synthesis revealed that TURP was the most efficacious intervention for clinical (International Prostate Symptoms Score and quality of life) and functional outcomes (maximum urinary flow rate and post-void residual urine volume), and was associated with a lower reintervention rate compared with PAE (risk ratio [RR] 2.08 with 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 4.51) and PUL (RR 2.33 with 95% CI 0.50 to 10.86), although the difference were not statistically significant. Indirect comparison indicated that PUL and PAE resulted in similar outcomes. PAE was associated with fewer minor adverse events (AEs; RR 0.75 with 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18) and PUL with fewer major AEs (RR 0.72 with 95% CI 0.17 to 3.13) when compared with TURP. Whilst PAE had a better ranking with regard to improvement of most clinical and functional outcomes, PUL was the best ranked procedure regarding erectile function, as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function 5, but no significant difference was observed. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that PUL and PAE have similar clinical efficacy and safety profiles in the management of LUTS associated with BPH. However, the quality of evidence is relatively low because of the paucity of RCTs available, and results should be interpreted with caution.

Initial experience with prostatic urethral lift versus enucleation of the prostate: a retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess initial results and patient characteristics of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) compared with those of bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (TUEB) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in older patients. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at a single institution and involved 25 consecutive patients with BPH who underwent PUL between April 2022 and May 2023. Patient characteristics, operative details, and pre- and postoperative symptom scores were evaluated. The results were compared with those of a previously reported TUEB group (n = 55). RESULTS: The mean age of the patients in the PUL group was 74.6 years, and the mean prostate volume was 47.5 ml. The PUL procedure significantly improved urinary symptoms, particularly incomplete emptying (p = 0.041), intermittency (p = 0.005), and weak stream (p = 0.001). The PUL group had higher comorbidity scores (p = 0.048) and included older patients (p = 0.002) than the TUEB group. TUEB showed better improvements in some symptoms and maximum flow rate (p = 0.01) than PUL; however, PUL had a shorter operative time and fewer complications than TUEB (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The initial results demonstrate the efficacy and safety of PUL in older patients with BPH. Despite TUEB showing better outcomes in certain aspects than PUL, PUL offers advantages such as shorter operative time and fewer complications. Therefore, PUL can be considered a viable option for high-risk older patients with BPH.

How I Do It: The prostatic urethral lift for obstructive median lobes.

Millions of men in North America suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are managed on medical therapy. Most patients, however, report poor adherence, and yet relatively few pursue more definitive surgical solutions. The Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) was designed to address many of the patient-identified barriers to surgery, namely iatrogenic sexual dysfunction, incontinence, lengthy recovery and postoperative catheterization. Randomized studies and large real world multicenter and database studies have demonstrated safety and effectiveness of PUL when addressing lateral lobe disease. In recent years further technique and device development has led to the FDA approval for PUL addressing obstructive median lobes as well. At 12 months, PUL median lobe patients in a controlled trial and a large retrospective study experienced average IPSS improvement of 13.5 and 11.6 points, QoL improvement of 3.0 and 2.1 points, and Qmax improvement of 6.4 and 7.1 mL/sec, respectively. In the controlled setting, both ejaculatory and erectile function were preserved and postoperative catheterization rates, while higher than lateral lobe PUL rates, were similarly short lived with a mean duration of 1.2 days. We describe the current technique for performing PUL to address the obstructive median lobe and detail a new device, which can make it easier to alleviate obstruction due to trilobar anatomy.

Improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score after prostatic urethral lifts is dependent on prostatic volume.

INTRODUCTION: Prostatic urethral lifts (PUL) provide improvement in urinary symptoms for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The aim of this study is to determine operative factors associated with improvement in urinary symptoms after PUL in men with bothersome BPH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with BPH undergoing PUL at a single, tertiary center were identified from 2019 to 2022. Inclusion criteria included documented prostate volume as well as preoperative and postoperative cystoscopic images of the prostatic urethra. Multivariate regression modeling was performed to determine the predictive factors-including prostate volume, number of implants, and degree of unobstructed prostatic urethral channel-for improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) after PUL. RESULTS: Of the 47 men, the distribution of prostate volume was 1 patient with < 30 grams, 33 patients with 30-79 grams, five patients with 80-100 grams, and six patients with > 100 grams. The mean number of implants used was six implants. The mean preoperative and postoperative IPSS were 23 and 14, respectively. The mean (standard error (SE)) change and percent change in IPSS score following PUL was 14 and 60%, respectively. The mean percent improvement in prostatic urethral channel after anterior clip placements was 67%. On multivariate analysis, larger prostate volume was associated with greater change in IPPS follow surgery (p = 0.0091) while number of implants and percent of prostatic urethral opening were not associated with change in IPSS (p = 0.3094 and p = 0.2249, respectively). CONCLUSION: Men with larger prostates are associated with greater improvement in urinary symptom after PUL regardless of number of implants utilized and degree of prostatic urethral channel opening after prostatic implants.

Six novel minimally invasive therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia. / æ²»ç–—è‰¯æ€§å‰åˆ—è ºå¢žç”Ÿçš„å ­ç§æ–°å¾®åˆ›æ‰‹æœ¯.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the most common cause of lower urinary tract symptoms in men. When drug treatment is ineffective or conventional surgery is not suitable, novel minimally invasive therapies can be considered. These include prostatic urethral lift, prostatic artery embolisation, water vapor thermal therapy, Aquablation-image guided robotic waterjet ablation, temporary implantable nitinol device and prostatic stents. These novel therapies can be performed in outpatient setting under local anesthesia, with shorter operative and recovery times, and better protection of ejaculatory function and erectile function. General conditions of the patient and advantages and disadvantages of the each of these therapies should be fully considered to make individualized plans.

Minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Cochrane network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness and ranking of minimally invasive treatments (MITs) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched multiple databases up to 24 February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the following treatments: convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT; or Rezum); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL; or Urolift); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or sham surgery. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 27 trials involving 3017 men. The overall certainty of the evidence of most outcomes according to GRADE was low to very low. Compared to TURP, we found that PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urological symptoms, while WVTT, TUMT and TIND may result in worse urological symptoms. MITs may result in little to no difference in quality of life, compared to TURP. MITs may result in a large reduction in major adverse events compared to TURP. We were uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP, however, TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates. We were very uncertain of the effects of MITs on erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among MITs, PUL and PAE had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and quality of life, TUMT for major adverse events, WVTT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function. Excluding WVTT and TIND, for which there were only studies with short-term (3-month) follow-up, PUL had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for retreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and quality of life compared to TURP at short-term follow-up.

Real-world data comparing minimally invasive surgeries for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the differences in surgical outcomes between the prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and previous thermal energy procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We present an observational population-based study of 2694 men with BPH in New York State and California who received PUL, transurethral needle ablation (TUNA), or transurethral microwave therapy (TUMT) in outpatient and ambulatory surgery settings from 2005 to 2018. For these surgical procedures, short-term outcomes were reported and compared using a Chi-square test and mixed-effect logistic regressions. Long-term outcomes were described using Kaplan-Meier failure curves and compared using a Log-rank test and Cox regressions. RESULTS: A significant portion of PUL patients had a comorbidity count ≥ 2 (n = 838, 37.0%). PUL exhibited the lowest 30 day and 90-day inpatient or ER readmission rates among all surgical techniques except for 90-day ER readmission (p < 0.05). No differences were observed for 1- and 3-year risks of reoperation between PUL [5.5% (95% CI 4.4-6.8%) and 14.9% (95% CI 10.9-20.1%)], TUNA [7.4% (95% CI 5.0-10.9%) and 11.3% (95% CI 8.3-15.4%)] and TUMT [8.5% (95% CI 4.7-15.2%) and 15.3% (95% CI 9.5-24.0%)]. 1- and 3-year risks of stricture development for PUL were 0.2% (95% CI 0.0-0.7%) and 0.2% (95% CI 0.0-0.07%), respectively. CONCLUSION: In a patient population with chronic conditions, patients treated with PUL exhibited similar 30- and 90-day inpatient or ER readmission rates when compared to previous reports. However, 1- and 3-year reoperation risks for PUL closely resembled previous thermal energy surgical procedures.

Effectiveness of convective water vapor energy therapy versus prostatic urethral lift for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and indirect comparison.

PURPOSE: To synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and convective water vapor thermal energy therapy (WAVE) for minimally invasive treatment of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: A systematic search of databases was performed to identify trials comparing WAVE or PUL to either an active or sham surgery control in subjects with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction. A controlled indirect treatment comparison based on the approach of Bucher was performed for outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax). The durability of treatment response was assessed by life-table analysis of freedom from retreatment through 4 years. RESULTS: Two multicenter sham-controlled trials (Rezum II Study, NCT01912339: LIFT Study, NCT01294150) were identified. The trials employed a common sham procedure and were similar with respect to their designs and subjects' baseline characteristics. Comparisons on the treatment effect in excess of sham response found non-significant differences between WAVE and PUL for symptom score [mean difference (MD): - 1.7 points; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 4.8, 1.4] but Qmax improvements favored WAVE [MD: 3.4 ml/sec; CI: 1.2, 5.6]. The proportion free of retreatment through 4 years was 89.1% for WAVE versus 75.4% for PUL [log-rank P = 0.004]. CONCLUSIONS: PUL and WAVE provide similar subjective improvements but flow-rate improvement and durability of response seem greater for WAVE. The confirmation of these findings in a randomized trial is warranted.

Prostatic urethral lift (UroLift): a real-world analysis of outcomes using hospital episodes statistics.

BACKGROUND: To determine real-world outcomes of prostatic urethral lift (UroLift) procedures conducted in hospitals across England. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort was identified from Hospital Episode Statistics data including men undergoing UroLift in hospitals in England between 2017 and 2020. Procedure uptake, patient demographics, inpatient complications, 30-day accident and emergency re-attendance rate, requirement for further treatment and catheterization were captured. Kaplan-Meier and hazard analysis were used to analyse time to re-treatment. RESULTS: 2942 index UroLift procedures from 80 hospital trusts were analysed; 85.3% conducted as day-case surgery (admitted to hospital for a planned surgical procedure and returning home on the same day). In-hospital complication rate was 3.4%. 93% of men were catheter-free at 30 days. The acute accident and emergency attendance rate within 30 days was 12.0%. Results of Kaplan Meier analysis for subsequent re-treatment (including additional UroLift and endoscopic intervention) at 1 and 2 years were 5.2% [95% CI 4.2 to 6.1] and 11.9% [10.1 to 13.6] respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis of UroLift shows that it can be delivered safely in a day-case setting with minimal morbidity. However, hospital resource usage for catheterization and emergency hospital attendance in the first 30 days was substantial, and 12% required re-treatment at 2 years.

Prostatic urethral lift (UroLift) versus convective water vapor ablation (Rezum) for minimally invasive treatment of BPH: a comparison of improvements and durability in 3-year clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Half of men aged > 60 years will develop benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with 40% of these men having moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). There is limited knowledge on a head-to-head comparison of prostatic urethral lift (UroLift) and convective water vapor ablation (Rezum) for the treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH. We sought to compare randomized controlled trials with 3-year clinical outcome data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a thorough literature search, two multicenter sham-controlled double-blind randomized trials for UroLift and Rezum were identified and compared. Both studies had similar designs, baseline characteristics, reported outcomes, and low risks of bias. RESULTS: Rezum and UroLift resulted in significant improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 3 months (51.4% and 49.9%, respectively) and 50% reduction of IPSS Quality of Life that was durable across all time points. At 24 and 36 months, there was a statistically significant difference in IPSS between groups, favoring Rezum (-11.2 ± 7.3 versus -9.13 ± 7.62, p = 0.04, and -11.0 ± 7.1 versus -8.83 ± 7.41, p = 0.04, respectively). While Rezum had greater improvement in Qmax at 3 months (6.4 ± 7.2 versus 4.29 ± 5.16, p < 0.01), there was no difference in improvement from 12-36 months between treatments. Only UroLift experienced improvements of Men's Sexual Health Questionnaire- Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD) function from baseline and was better than Rezum at all time points (p < 0.01). Rezum failed to significantly reduce the MSHQ-EjD bother at 3 months, while UroLift demonstrated a significant reduction of 27.56% (p < 0.01). Both systems offered equal improvements in the bother score by 12-36 months. Surgical re-treatment rates favored Rezum over Urolift (4.4% vs. 10.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Rezum achieved a greater improvement in symptom relief compared to UroLift. Improvement in ejaculatory dysfunction in patients treated with UroLift was greater than Rezum.

Mechanical and Ablative Minimally Invasive Techniques for Male LUTS due to Benign Prostatic Obstruction: A Systematic Review according to BPH-6 Evaluation.

The treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction represents one of the major interesting aspects in urological clinical practice. Although transurethral resection of the prostate is still considered the surgical gold standard for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with prostate volume <80 mL, various minimally invasive surgical treatments (MITs) have been developed to overcome the limitations of the "conventional" surgery. To date, there are no validated tools to evaluate the surgical outcomes of MITs; however, in the past, BPH-6 has been used for this purpose. In this systematic review, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of MITs according to BPH-6 score system. We focused our attention on MITs based on mechanical devices (prostatic urethral lift and the temporary implantable nitinol device) and techniques for prostate ablation (image guided robotic waterjet ablation and convective water vapor energy ablation). Evidence shows that MITs are capable of leading to an improvement in LUTS without having an overwhelming impact on complications and are a valid alternative to other treatments in patients who wish to preserve their sexual function or in case of inapplicability of conventional surgery. However, comparative studies between these techniques are still missing.

The role of novel minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update on novel minimally invasive lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) treatments in a non-systematic review. To define potential target populations for the various new minimally invasive treatments. METHODS: Recent literature, meta-analyses and guideline recommendations for aquablation (AquaBeam® ; PROCEPT BioRobotics, Redwood City, CA, USA), water vapour thermal therapy (Rezum® ; Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA), prostate artery embolisation (PAE), prostatic urethral lift (UroLift® ; NeoTract-Teleflex, Pleasanton, CA, USA) and the temporary implantable nitinol device [i-TIND® (nitinol butterfly-like stent ); Medi-Tate Ltd., Or-Akiva, Israel] were reviewed. RESULTS: Procedures that can be performed on an outpatient basis (Rezum, PAE, UroLift and i-TIND) are not an alternative for the standard patient requiring BPH surgery. Their effect on urinary flow, post-void residual urine volume or bladder outlet obstruction is less pronounced than that of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Yet, these options appear to be valuable for those patients unfit for surgery, men who want to avoid medical therapy in general, or those who want to avoid sexual side-effects associated with medical therapy or standard BPH surgery (e.g. TURP). Aquablation is the first successfully operationalised robotic resection system, especially for patients with prostates >50 g. Nevertheless, long-term data are necessary for all novel, minimally invasive treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Better designed clinical trials, a clearer definition of target populations and a more realistic marketing allow a better characterisation of novel minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPH. It is hoped that some of these novel devices will stand the test of time, in contrast to the vast majority of their predecessors.

A Systematic Review of Reported Ejaculatory Dysfunction in Clinical Trials Evaluating Minimally Invasive Treatment Modalities for BPH.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To explore the sexual outcomes following the novel minimally invasive surgical procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia- (BPH-) related lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), with an emphasis on ejaculatory dysfunction (EjD). RECENT FINDINGS: A database search with a 10-year time restriction was carried out until February 20, 2020 using MEDLINE through the PubMed Platform evaluating minimally invasive treatment modalities for BPH and their effect on EjD. After the article selection, we retrieved data for men randomized in 19 different studies with results in 40 separate published articles investigating minimally invasive BPH surgery and reporting EjD rates. To date, water vapor thermal therapy or Rezum, prostatic urethral lift (PUL) or UroLift®, prostate artery embolization (PAE), and Aquablation showed acceptable rates (< 2%) of retrograde ejaculation by 1 year and had very low adverse events related to the procedure. Both PUL and Rezum demonstrated lower rates when compared with PAE and Aquablation. With comparable sexual side effect profiles postoperatively, clinicians may determine which therapeutic modality is optimal for patients based on efficacy and cost-benefit. Further randomized clinical trials are required to directly compare the effect of novel minimally invasive surgical procedures for BPH-related LUTS on ejaculation and sexual function.

Minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL) efficacious in TURP candidates: a multicenter German evaluation after 2 years.

INTRODUCTION: Successful outcomes have been reported for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with the prostatic urethral lift (PUL) in a number of clinical investigations. Our aim was to investigate PUL outcomes in patients treated in a day-to-day clinical setting without the rigid exclusion criteria of clinical studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated the outcome of the PUL procedure at five German departments during the initial period when PUL was approved for the clinic (10/2012-06/2014). All candidates for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) received PUL information and were given the choice of procedures. The only exclusion criterion was an obstructive median lobe. No patients were excluded because of high post-void residual volume (PVR), prostate size, retention history or LUTS oral therapy. Maximum urinary flow (Qmax), PVR, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QOL) were assessed at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. RESULTS: Of 212 TURP candidates, 86 choose PUL. A mean of 3.8 (2-7) UroLift implants were implanted in patients of 38-85 years with a prostate size of 17-111 ml over 57 (42-90) min under general or local anesthesia. Thirty-eight (38.4%) patients had severe BPH obstruction and would have been denied PUL utilizing previously reported study criteria. Within 1 month 74 (86%) reported substantial symptom relief with significant improvements in Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and QOL (p < 0.001) that was maintained within the follow-up. Sexual function including ejaculation was unchanged or improved. No Clavien-Dindo Grad ≥ 2 was reported postoperatively. Eleven (12.8%) patients were retreated over 2 years. Twelve (86%) of 14 patients presenting with chronic urinary retention were catheter free at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: PUL is a promising surgical technique that may alleviate LUTS, even in patients with severe obstruction.

Combined prostatic urethral lift and remodeling of the prostate and bladder neck: a modified transurethral approach in the treatment of symptomatic lower urinary tract obstruction.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of combining prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and a limited resection of the prostatic middle lobe or bladder neck incision in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were treated at two tertiary centers and followed prospectively. Patient evaluations included patient characteristics, relief of LUTS symptoms, erectile and ejaculatory function, continence, operative time and adverse events. Patients were followed for a mean of 10.9 months. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were as follows: age 66 years (46-85), prostate volume 39.6 cc (22-66), preoperative IPSS/AUASI 20 (6-35)/QoL 3.9 (1-6)/peak flow 10.5 mL/s (4.0-19)/post-void residual volume (PVR) 123 mL (0-500). Mean operating time was 31 min (9-55). Postoperative complications were minor except for the surgical retreatment of one patient for blood clot retention (Clavien 3b). One patient required catheterization due to urinary retention. Reduction of symptoms (IPSS - 59.6%), increase in QoL (+ 49.0%), increase in flow (+ 111.5%), and reduction of PVR (- 66.8%) were significant. Antegrade ejaculation was always maintained. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a combination of PUL and transurethral surgical techniques is feasible, safe, and effective. This approach may be offered to patients with moderate size prostates including those with unfavorable anatomic conditions for PUL. This procedure is still 'minimally invasive' and preserves sexual function. In addition, it may add to a higher functional efficacy compared to PUL alone. STUDY REGISTER NUMBER: DRKS00008970.

Prostatic urethral lift vs transurethral resection of the prostate: 2-year results of the BPH6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare prostatic urethral lift (PUL) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with regard to symptoms, recovery experience, sexual function, continence, safety, quality of life, sleep and overall patient perception. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 80 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, controlled, non-blinded study conducted at 10 European centres. The BPH6 responder endpoint assessed symptom relief, quality of recovery, erectile function preservation, ejaculatory function preservation, continence preservation and safety. Additional evaluations of patient perspective, quality of life and sleep were prospectively collected, analysed and presented for the first time. RESULTS: Significant improvements in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life (QoL), BPH Impact Index (BPHII), and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax ) were observed in both arms throughout the 2-year follow up. Change in IPSS and Qmax in the TURP arm were superior to the PUL arm. Improvements in IPSS QoL and BPHII score were not statistically different between the study arms. PUL resulted in superior quality of recovery, ejaculatory function preservation and performance on the composite BPH6 index. Ejaculatory function bother scores did not change significantly in either treatment arm. TURP significantly compromised continence function at 2 weeks and 3 months. Only PUL resulted in statistically significant improvement in sleep. CONCLUSION: PUL was compared to TURP in a randomised, controlled study which further characterized both modalities so that care providers and patients can better understand the net benefit when selecting a treatment option.

[Prostatic urethral lift: A novel minimally invasive treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia].

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and BPH-induced lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common factors influencing the quality of life (QOL) of elderly males. In case of undesirable or adverse effects of medication, many BPH patients seek surgical treatment. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), though evidently effective for BPH, fails to preserve the sexual function and therefore reduces the QOL of the patients. Moreover, some elderly patients with comorbidities may be unfit for TURP. Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is a newly developed surgical procedure for the treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH. With the advantages of minimal invasiveness, low rate of peri- and post-operative complications, and maximal preservation of patients' erectile and ejaculatory functions, PUL is winning more and more attention from the clinicians and patients.

Iatrogenic injuries to reservoirs of inflatable penile prosthesis during urologic surgery: a scoping review and case report.

INTRODUCTION: First-line treatment options for patients with erectile dysfunction whose medical management has failed include the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Many patients with an IPP require subsequent urologic surgery, during which the reservoir of the IPP can be injured. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to present a summary of current literature related to iatrogenic injuries to the IPP sustained during urologic surgery. METHODS: Two reviewers independently performed a systematic search on PubMed using standardized search terms to identify pertinent articles. After preliminary review, relevant studies were analyzed to identify the presence of perioperative complications resulting in IPP reservoir injury. Results were categorized by surgical procedures. RESULTS: Among 13 articles included, all were based on urologic surgery. Four studies identified IPP reservoir injury as a result of surgical injury. Of these, injuries occurred during radical prostatectomy (n = 3) and prostatic urethral lift surgery (UroLift, n = 1). Most radical prostatectomy studies without IPP reservoir injuries also described intentional surgical techniques that were employed to prevent reservoir damage, including modulation of reservoir inflation-deflation (n = 3), temporary reservoir repositioning (n = 1), or reservoir capsule dissection to improve visualization (n = 1). Findings from an additional novel case report on IPP injury during a UroLift procedure are presented in this review. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of studies identified intraoperative IPP reservoir injury as a significant complication of urologic surgery, particularly during radical prostatectomy. Novel case report findings also contribute the only other case of IPP reservoir damage sustained from delivery of UroLift implants. Findings are used to create a standardized surgical checklist that guides perioperative planning measures prior to pursuing surgery in adjacent spaces.