Surgical Reintervention Rate after Prostatic Urethral Lift: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Involving over 2,000 Patients.

PURPOSE: The surgical reintervention rate after prostatic urethral lift is not well characterized but has been estimated at 2% to 3% per year. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the surgical reintervention rate after prostatic urethral lift. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of men treated with prostatic urethral lift reporting at least 1 year of maximum followup data. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate the annual rate of surgical reintervention after prostatic urethral lift, including those performed for lower urinary tract symptoms or involving device explant, additions or replacement. The robustness of the meta-analysis conclusions was evaluated in a one-study removed analysis and heterogeneity was investigated with a subgroup analysis. RESULTS: In 11 studies (2,016 patients) 153 surgical reinterventions were performed, among which transurethral resection of the prostate/laser (51.0%), repeat prostatic urethral lift (32.7%) and device explant (19.6%) were most common. The annual rate of surgical reintervention was 6.0% per year (95% CI 3.0-8.9). These results were not significantly influenced by any single study. The annual rate of surgical intervention was significantly influenced by the mean duration of patient followup. Surgical reintervention rates were 4.3% per year in studies with 1 year or less mean followup, 10.7% per year in studies with more than 1 year to 3 years mean followup and 5.8% per year in a single study with more than 3 years mean followup (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The surgical reintervention rate with prostatic urethral lift is 6.0% per year and is higher in studies with longer followup durations.

Penile blood pressure is useful to identify candidates for tadalafil treatment in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether penile blood pressure (PBP) can be used to identify patients who can benefit from tadalafil treatment, the correlation between PBP at baseline and changes in lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) induced by tadalafil treatment was studied prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with BPH who were poor responders to α1 -blockers and took tadalafil instead of an α1 -blocker were registered between 2014 and 2016. The patients were divided into two groups (low- and high-PBP groups) using the median baseline PBP of 110 mmHg as the threshold. The changes in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) between before and at 4 and 12 weeks after tadalafil treatment were compared between the low- and high-PBP groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify parameters associated with IPSS improvement with tadalafil treatment. RESULTS: In all, 51 patients were investigated. The IPSS in the low-PBP group decreased immediately after the start of treatment, and there was significant improvement in the IPSS from baseline at 4 and 12 weeks after the start of treatment, whilst the IPSS in the high-PBP group did not show significant changes. On multivariate analysis, PBP at baseline, anticholinergic drug use, and IPSS at baseline were significant predictors of a good IPSS response to tadalafil treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that PBP could reliably identify patients with BPH who could benefit from tadalafil treatment. Patients with low PBP could be better responders to tadalafil.

WATER II (80-150 mL) procedural outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To present early safety and feasibility data from a multicentre prospective study (WATER II) of aquablation in the treatment of symptomatic men with large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: Between September and December 2017, 101 men with moderate-to-severe BPH symptoms and prostate volume of 80-150 mL underwent aquablation in a prospective multicentre international clinical trial. Baseline demographics and standardized postoperative management variables were carefully recorded in a central independently monitored database. Surgeons answered analogue scale questionnaires on intra-operative technical factors and postoperative management. Adverse events up to 1 month were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. RESULTS: The mean (range) prostate volume was 107 (80-150) mL. The mean (range) operating time was 37 (15-97) min and aquablation resection time was 8 (3-15) min. Adequate adenoma resection was achieved with a single pass in 34 patients and with additional passes in 67 patients (mean 1.8 treatment passes), all in a single operating session. Haemostasis was achieved using either a Foley balloon catheter placed in the bladder under traction (n = 98, mean duration 18 h) or direct tamponade using a balloon inflated in the prostate fossa (n = 3, mean duration 15 h). No patient required electrocautery for haemostasis at the time of the primary procedure. The mean length of stay after the procedure was 1.6 days (range same day to 6 days). The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥2 event rate observed at 1 month was 29.7%. Bleeding complications were recorded in 10 patients (9.9%) during the index procedure hospitalization prior to discharge, and included six (5.9%) peri-operative transfusions. CONCLUSIONS: Aquablation is feasible and safe in treating men with men with large prostates (80-150 mL). The 6-month efficacy data are being accrued and will be presented in future publications (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03123250).

Aquablation of the prostate: a review and update.

INTRODUCTION: Invasive procedures, such as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), have long been the gold standard therapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In recent years, newer treatment modalities have arisen, such as Aquablation, with similar efficacy and improved adverse event profiles, with particular emphasis on postoperative sexual function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Aquablation is a new technology that utilizes machine-controlled water jets to ablate the soft tissue of the prostate as determined by the doctor. In this review, we will discuss the techniques currently being used to complete this procedure, the outcomes and safety, and finally, the long term data as well as the adverse events associated with Aquablation. RESULTS: Aquablation is rapidly effective in treating patients with LUTS due to BPH. Critically, in head to head comparison with TURP, Aquablation has equivalent objective results with much shorter resections times, and significantly less sexual side effects. Currently, the literature only reports results extending to 12 months post-procedure, and therefore long term durability of results beyond this time point remains unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Aquablation is a safe and effective option for treating LUTS secondary to BPH. Aquablation is a new surgical option that shows very promising short term results, in particular, due to its short resection time regardless of gland size and low rate of sexual side effects. This technology still requires further investigation to confirm durability and efficacy over time.

Office-based therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review and update.

INTRODUCTION: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common conditions affecting the aging man. Over the years, various treatment modalities with distinct efficacy and safety profiles have emerged in experimental and clinical use. However, only a handful have gained in popularity and stood the test of time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We provide an update on minimally invasive treatment modalities for BPH, specifically focused on office-based procedures namely the prostatic urethral lift (UroLift) and the convective water vapor ablation therapy (Rezum). RESULTS: Both the UroLift and Rezum have demonstrated excellent efficacy and durability in relieving LUTS in the BPH patient. When compared to the gold standard TURP, these novel therapies can also be performed as an outpatient procedure under local anesthesia, which allows for decreased hospitalization, operative and catheterization times, subsequently allowing for increased cost savings. Moreover, these procedures have no discernable adverse effects on postoperative sexual function, making it a desirable treatment option for many patients. CONCLUSIONS: Both the UroLift and Rezum are minimally invasive treatment options capable of providing rapid, significant and durable relief of LUTS secondary to BPH. They demonstrate comparable efficacy to TURP with the added advantage of preserving sexual function and decreasing patient morbidity and healthcare costs.

Photoselective vaporization of the prostate: application, outcomes and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Open prostatectomy and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the gold standard therapy for moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In recent years, laser vaporization technologies have now been recognized by international guidelines as an effective treatment alternative to TURP for treating BPH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this contemporary review, we aim to discuss the application, outcomes and safety of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), specifically with the GreenLight laser. We also discuss the properties and evolution of the GreenLight laser as understanding the basic principles of this laser system. RESULTS: GreenLight PVP is a durable and effective alternative to TURP, especially in high-risk patients on systemic anticoagulation. Aside from providing similar efficacy and safety, the GreenLight PVP also allows for decreased hospitalization times, catheterization times and subsequently decreased healthcare costs. The latest generation laser, 180W XPS system, is found to be more cost-effective and efficacious in tissue vaporization when compared to previous laser generations. CONCLUSIONS: Laser vaporization is a safe and effective option to treating LUTS secondary to BPH. A patient-centered approach considering patient preference and preoperative parameters should be employed to determine the ideal treatment option for each individual patient.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): a review and update.

INTRODUCTION: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common diseases affecting the aging man, with almost 80% of men greater than 70 affected. Historically, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been considered the historical gold standard in the treatment of LUTS due to BPH for many years, contemporary literature indicates that holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has replaced TURP and open simple prostatectomy as the size independent surgical gold standard for BPH treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this review, we discuss the current techniques utilized, outcomes and safety, as well as the long term durability of results. Adverse events associated with the HoLEP procedure, both enucleation and morcellation, are covered as well. RESULTS: HoLEP has a robust body of literature supporting the technique, which demonstrates its ability to surpass other surgical BPH procedures, including TURP and open simple prostatectomy. Additionally, there is long term durability of both subjective and objective outcomes greater than 10 years associated with this procedure. One randomized trial showed specific postoperative outcome measures that were superior to TURP at 7 years of follow up, including Qmax (4.36 mL/s improvement), erectile function (2.39 points improvement on the IIEF erectile function section), and weight of prostate removed (15.7 grams greater), while other studies have shown greater reduction in postoperative PSA, lower detrusor pressure at Qmax, and more. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, HoLEP has proven to be an extremely durable and effective treatment for patients suffering from LUTS due to BPH. Both the Europeans and AUA guidelines on the surgical treatment of BPH recommend HoLEP as a size-independent treatment option for those men with moderate to severe symptoms. HoLEP is an excellent option for many patients who may not be good candidates for other procedures based on prostate size, age, or bleeding risk.

Application of 180W XPS GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety, efficacy and clinical outcomes after photovaporization of the prostate with the 180W-XPS Greenlight laser in patients with low urinary tracts symptom secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 102 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent 180W XPS laser vaporization of the prostate from April 2017 to April 2018 were enrolled. The preoperative parameters, postoperative functional, uroflowmetry outcomes and complications were collected. RESULTS: All patients were successfully treated with 180W XPS laser vaporization. Mean preoperative prostate volume was 81±28.7 ml and mean laser time was 28.2±12.5 minutes. No major complications intraoperatively or postoperatively were observed and no blood transfusions were required. Comparing to preoperative characteristics, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual (PVR) parameters were improved significantly and sustained during the follow-up period. At 3, 6 and 12-month follow-ups, mean urinary peak flow increased from 6.2±2.1 ml per second to 19.8±4.6, 19.4±4.7 and 19.6±4.9 ml per second, respectively. Mean International Prostate Symptom Scores decreased over time, from 28.9±4.5 to 8.2±1.6, 6.2±1.22 and 5.88±1.15 at 3, 6, 12 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 180W XPS Greenlight laser vaporization is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to BPH.

Prostate artery Embolisation Assessment of Safety and feasibilitY (P-EASY): a potential alternative to long-term medical therapy for benign prostate hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety, short-term efficacy and early functional results of prostate artery embolisation (PAE), an emerging minimally invasive treatment for symptomatic benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 51 men with BPH (prostate size >40 mL) causing moderate-severe lower urinary tract symptoms, who had either failed or ceased medical therapy and had declined or were considered unsuitable for surgical intervention, were recruited to this study. All men underwent baseline clinical assessment, PAE, and 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoints of this study were safety and feasibility. Safety was measured by the incidence of post-PAE adverse events and feasibility was defined by technical success. Secondary endpoints were changes in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) score at 3 months after PAE. RESULTS: There were no serious adverse events and all procedures were technically successful. For non-catheterised patients, improvement in IPSS and QoL was reported in 95.1% of cases (P < 0.001). The mean reductions in IPSS and QoL were 18.8 points (80.7%) (P < 0.001) and 3.8 points (80.6%) (P < 0.001), respectively. Of the 30 non-indwelling-catheter-dependent men on medical therapy, 23 men were able to completely cease all medications, with all but one of the remaining men reporting significant improvements in IPSS and QoL score. CONCLUSION: PAE is a technically feasible and safe procedure, with excellent short-term efficacy. High rates of patient satisfaction were achieved in this study, along with significant reductions in prostate symptoms and improvements in QoL. PAE may be an alternative to long-term use of medical therapy for symptoms due to BPH.

Fexapotide triflutate: results of long-term safety and efficacy trials of a novel injectable therapy for symptomatic prostate enlargement.

PURPOSE: These studies were undertaken to determine if fexapotide triflutate 2.5 mg transrectal injectable (FT) has significant long-term (LT) safety and efficacy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: Two placebo controlled double-blind randomized parallel group trials with 995 BPH patients at 72 sites treated 3:2 FT:placebo, with open-label FT crossover (CO) re-injection in 2 trials n = 344 and long-term follow-up (LF) 2-6.75 years (mean 3.58 years, median 3.67 years; FT re-injection CO mean 4.27 years, median 4.42 years) were evaluated. 12 months post-treatment patients elected no further treatment, approved oral medications, FT, or interventional treatment. Primary endpoint variable was change in Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months and at LF. CO primary co-endpoints were 3-year incidence of (1) surgery for BPH in FT treated CO patients versus patients crossed over to oral BPH medications and (2) surgery or acute urinary retention in FT-treated CO placebo patients versus placebo patients crossed over to oral BPH medications. 28 CO secondary endpoints assessed surgical and symptomatic outcomes in FT reinjected patients versus conventional BPH medication CO and control subgroups at 2 and 3 years. RESULTS: FT injection had no significant safety differences from placebo. LF IPSS change from baseline was higher in FT treated patients compared to placebo (median FT group improvement - 5.2 versus placebo - 3.0, p < 0.0001). LF incidence of AUR (1.08% p = 0.0058) and prostate cancer (PCa) (1.1% p = 0.0116) were both reduced in FT treated patients. LF incidence of intervention for BPH was reduced in the FT group versus oral BPH medications (8.08% versus 27.85% at 3 years, p < 0.0001). LF incidence of intervention or AUR in placebo CO group with FT versus placebo CO group with oral medications was reduced (6.07% versus 33.3% at 3 years, p < 0.0001). 28/28 secondary efficacy endpoints were reached in LF CO re-injection studies. CONCLUSIONS: FT 2.5 mg is a safe and effective transrectal injectable for LT treatment of BPH. FT treated patients also had reduced need for BPH intervention, and reduced incidence of PCa and AUR.

The role of urodynamics in the surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is a common cause of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in elderly men. However, such symptoms are often caused by primary detrusor overactivity or underactivity. Surgical management where BPO is absent or merely incidental has a lower chance of success, and exposes the patient to the potential complications of surgery. This review discusses the diagnostic challenges facing this common presentation. RECENT FINDINGS: Most evidence comes from small, historical prospective cohort studies. A Cochrane review found only two studies that met the prespecified inclusion criteria. It concluded that urodynamics changed decision-making regarding surgery for LUTS but it was not possible to determine whether this impacted upon outcome. A systematic review of several noninvasive alternatives to urodynamics could not recommend any of them over urodynamic pressure-flow study assessment. Further research is currently in progress, the 'UPSTREAM' study, which is a randomized, multicentre trial. Men are randomized to undergo investigation with clinical evaluation and uroflowmetry, or to additionally receive urodynamics. The primary aim is to determine the impact of urodynamics on the assessment pathway. SUMMARY: Assessment of BPO involves determining whether it has a contributory role in individual patients. This is a crucial factor in outcome, as surgery can give poor results if the symptoms are principally caused by detrusor dysfunction (overactivity or underactivity). Urodynamics can help determine this if undertaken to a suitable standard. Further research will identify the precise role of this test modality.

Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition in ageing men that may cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Treatment aims are to relieve symptoms and prevent disease-related complications. Naftopidil is an alpha-blocker (AB) that has a high affinity for the A1d receptor that may have advantages in treating LUTS in this setting. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009. Since that time, several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of naftopidil for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, LILAC, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up to 31 May 2018 SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all parallel RCTs. We also included cross-over design trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Primary outcomes were urological symptom scores, quality of life (QoL) and treatment withdrawals for any reason; secondary outcomes were treatment withdrawals due to adverse events, acute urinary retention, surgical intervention for BPH, and cardiovascular and sexual adverse events. We considered outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomisation as short term, and later than 12 months as long term. We rated the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs with 2223 randomised participants across four comparisons for short-term follow-up. This abstract focuses on only two of four comparisons for which we found data since two comparators (i.e. propiverine and Eviprostat (phytotherapy)) are rarely used. One study comparing naftopidil to placebo did not report any relevant outcomes and was therefore excluded. There were no trials that compared to combination therapy with naftopidil or any 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) to combination therapy with other ABs and any 5-ARIs.All included studies were conducted in Asian countries. Study duration ranged from four to 12 weeks. Mean age was 67.8 years, prostate volume was 35.4 mL, and International Prostate Symptom Score was 18.3. We were unable to perform any of the preplanned subgroup analyses based on age and baseline symptom score.Naftopidil versus tamsulosinBased on 12 studies with 965 randomised participants, naftopidil may have resulted in little or no difference in urological symptom score (mean difference (MD) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 1.04 measured on a scale from 0 to 35 with higher score representing increased symptoms), QoL (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.30; measured on a scale from 0 to 6 with higher scores representing worse QoL), and treatment withdrawals for any reason (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; corresponding to 7 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 32 fewer to 31 more). Naftopidil may have resulted in little to no difference in sexual adverse events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22); this would result in 26 fewer sexual adverse events per 1000 participants (95% CI 43 fewer to 13 more). We rated the certainty of evidence as moderate for urological symptom score and low for the other outcomes.Naftopidil versus silodosinBased on five studies with 652 randomised participants, naftopidil may have resulted in little or no difference in the urological symptom scores (MD 1.04, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.85), QoL (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.66), and treatment withdrawals for any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.23; corresponding to 26 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 62 fewer to 32 more). We rated the certainty of evidence as low for all these outcomes. Naftopidil likely reduced sexual adverse events (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; corresponding to 126 fewer sexual adverse events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 139 fewer to 86 fewer). We rated the certainty of evidence as moderate for sexual adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Naftopidil appears to have similar effects in the urological symptom scores and QoL compared to tamsulosin and silodosin. Naftopidil has similar sexual adverse events compared to tamsulosin but has fewer compared to silodosin.

A prospective, randomized trial comparing thulium vapoenucleation with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction: perioperative safety and efficacy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the perioperative outcomes of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for patients with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS: Forty-eight and 46 patients were prospectively randomized to ThuVEP and HoLEP. All patients were assessed preoperatively and 4-week postoperatively. The complications were noted and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system. Patient data were expressed as median (interquartile range) or numbers (%). RESULTS: Median age at surgery was 73 (67-76) years and median prostate volume was 80 (46.75-100) cc and not different between the groups (p = 0.207). The median operative time was 60 (41-79) minutes without significant differences between both groups (p = 0.275). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding catheterization time [2 (2-2) days, p = 0.966] and postoperative stay [2 (2-3) days, p = 0.80]). Clavien 1 (13.8%), Clavien 2 (3.2%), Clavien 3a (2.1%), and Clavien 3b (4.3%) complications occurred without significant differences between the groups. However, the occurrence of acute postoperative urinary retention was higher after HoLEP compared to ThuVEP (15.2 vs. 2.1%, p ≤ 0.022). At 1-month follow-up, peak urinary flow rates (10.7 vs. 22 ml/s), post-void residual volumes (100 vs. 20 ml), International Prostate Symptom Score (20 vs. 10) and Quality of Life (4 vs. 3) had improved significantly (p ≤ 0.005) without significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: ThuVEP and HoLEP are safe and effective procedures for the treatment of symptomatic BPO. Both procedures give equivalent and satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.

Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study.

INTRODUCTION: To report the five year results of a prospective, multi-center, randomized, blinded sham control trial of the Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) in men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: At 19 centers in North America and Australia, 206 subjects ≥ 50 years old with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS ) > 12, peak flow rate (Qmax) ≤ 12 mL/s, and prostate volume 30 cc-80 cc were randomized 2:1 to the PUL procedure or blinded sham control. In PUL permanent UroLift implants are placed to hold open the lateral lobes of the prostate to reduce urinary obstruction. After randomized comparison at 3 months and the only opportunity to add more PUL implants, PUL patients were followed to 5 years. LUTS severity (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), BPH Impact Index (BPHII), Qmax, sexual function, and adverse events were assessed throughout follow up. RESULTS: IPSS improvement after PUL was 88% greater than that of sham at 3 months. LUTS and QOL were significantly improved by 2 weeks with return to preoperative physical activity within 8.6 days. Improvement in IPSS, QOL, BPHII, and Qmax were durable through 5 years with improvements of 36%, 50%, 52%, and 44% respectively. No difference was seen between Intent to Treat and Per Protocol populations. Surgical retreatment was 13.6% over 5 years. Adverse events were mild to moderate and transient. Sexual function was stable over 5 years with no de novo, sustained erectile or ejaculatory dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: PUL offers rapid improvement in symptoms, QOL and flow rate that is durable to 5 years. These improvements were achieved with minimal use of a postoperative urinary catheter, rapid return to normal, and preservation of both erectile and ejaculatory function. Symptom improvement was commensurate with patient satisfaction. PUL offers a minimally invasive option in the treatment of LUTS due to BPH.

State of the art: Advanced techniques for prostatic urethral lift for the relief of prostate obstruction under local anesthesia.

Benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) affects an estimated 60% of men over the age of 50 and 90% of men over the age of 80. The prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is a safe and effective office-based procedure that is used worldwide for the treatment of BPH in men who are dissatisfied with medications due to side effects or lack of efficacy or don't want to have a transurethral resection of the prostate due to the side effects and invasiveness of the procedure. In 2012 Barkin et al, published the standard technique for the delivery of the Urolift implant. The objective of this article is to describe the current state of the art advanced techniques for the delivery of the UroLift implant.

[Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various techniques of endoscopic prostate enucleation in a single center]. / Sravnitel'nyi analiz éffektivnosti razlichnykh metodik éndoskopicheskoi énukleatsii prostaty.

AIM: To compare electro- and laser enucleation (thulium, holmium) of prostate hyperplasia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 693 prostate hyperplasia patients were enrolled. 489 patients underwent holmium enucleation (HoLEP), 51 - monopolar enucleation, 153 - thulium enucleation (ThuLEP). Prostate volume was 91.7 (50-250) cm3. There were no significant differences in preoperative variables between both groups (I-PSS, QoL, Qmax, residual urine volume) (p>0.05). RESULTS: Mean time of HoLEP was 97.0±42.2 min, monopolar enucleation - 112.9±36.3 min, ThuLEP duration was significantly less (77.4±36.3 min, p<0.01). An efficacy of all methods was confirmed in 6 months after surgery by significant (p<0.01) improvement of functional parameters (I-PSS, QoL, Qmax, residual urine volume). CONCLUSION: High efficiency of thulium and holmium enucleation allows to consider them as 'gold standard' of prostate hyperplasia management. Despite higher incidence of complications an efficacy of monopolar enucleation is comparable to that in laser techniques.

BPH update: medical versus interventional management.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition that afflicts a large proportion of aging men. The primary care physician has an important role with the identification and early treatment of bothersome urinary symptoms caused by BPH. This includes a detailed history and physical exam, as well as initiation of a number of medications such as alpha-blockers, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. It is also very important for the primary care giver to determine when additional evaluation and referral to a urologist needs to occur, specifically when surgical intervention is needed. This review will summarize the management of this common disorder and is designed to aid the generalist with the pertinent information needed to provide excellent care.

Systematic review of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical treatments on men's ejaculatory function: Time for a bespoke approach?

Although ejaculatory dysfunction is common for patients undergoing benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery, no clear evidence is present to counsel men seeking to preserve ejaculation. Our aim was to evaluate ejaculatory dysfunction in relation to benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery. We carried out a web and manual search using MEDLINE and Embase including randomized controlled trials reporting ejaculatory dysfunction after benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery: 42 randomized controlled trials comprising a total of 3857 patients were included. Only one study had ejaculatory dysfunction as a primary outcome, and just 10 evaluated ejaculatory dysfunction before and after surgery. The definition of ejaculatory dysfunction was not standardized. Similarly, just seven studies used internationally validated questionnaires to address ejaculatory dysfunction. The reported rates of ejaculatory dysfunction after resectional electrosurgery, laser procedures, coagulation, ablation and implant techniques were assessed and compared. Transurethral resection of the prostate and recent laser procedures including holmium, thulium and GreenLight cause similar rates of ejaculatory dysfunction, occurring in almost three out of four to five men. Although providing less symptomatic benefit compared with transurethral resection of the prostate, transurethral incision of the prostate, transurethral needle ablation and transurethral microwave thermotherapy should be considered for men aiming to maintain normal ejaculation. UroLift is also a recent promising option for this category of patients. The vast majority of studies reporting ejaculatory dysfunction after benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery used poor methodology to investigate this complication. Future studies able to address clear hypothesis and considering ejaculatory dysfunction anatomical and pathophysiological features are required to develop ejaculation preserving techniques and to increase the evidence to counsel men aiming to preserve ejaculation.

How I Do It: GreenLight XPS 180W photoselective vaporization of the prostate.

The treatments for benign prostate enlargement (BPE), also known as lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH-LUTS), have evolved significantly over recent years. Where transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the gold standard surgery for enlarged prostate glands < 80 grams, newer modalities such as laser technology have proliferated with safe and efficacious results. Notably, for prostates larger than 80-100 grams, the surgical options were an open, simple prostatectomy or perhaps a staged TURP. Both of these surgeries have the potential for bleeding complications, electrolyte abnormalities, and prolonged hospital admissions. Additional demographic and healthcare forces are also at play. Our aging population of men is being increasingly successfully treated for cardiovascular disease. This means more men are on anti-coagulation therapy, many of whom must stay on these drugs to prevent stent clotting or stroke. Hospital resources, especially overnight hospital admissions do add considerable strain to our healthcare systems. Men are also increasingly becoming more savvy consumers when it comes to their health. Many male patients would prefer to take as few medications as possible. Studies of BPH medications in Europe and the United States have shown drug discontinuation rates between 58%-70% at 1 year. Men who are faced with the choice of daily medication for life versus an outpatient procedure will often opt for the latter, which is in keeping with AUA guidelines that still put surgery as a patient choice alongside medications. Being able to offer GreenLight photoselective vaporization (GL-PVP) with the GreenLight XPS 180Watt system addresses all of these concerns. Men with bothersome BPH-LUTS with essentially any sized prostate gland, can be treated as same-day surgery requiring no overnight admission to hospital, while continuing necessary anti-coagulants, with significantly diminished risks of bleeding, erectile dysfunction, TUR-syndrome. Just as there are many ways to perform a TURP, techniques for GL-PVP do vary. The objectives of this article are to breakdown some of the basic steps for the novice user of GL-PVP, as well as impart some 'pearls' for the more experienced user. Nothing can replace hands-on experience for any surgery. The GL-PVP is unique in that there are guides such as this and previous articles, an excellent simulation device (GreenLight SIM), and mentoring programs in place. The success of many surgeries has been the standardization of the procedure. Performing GL-PVP should not be haphazard. A surgical plan based on prostate anatomy and size, cystoscopic appearance, and application of routinized techniques should yield consistent and optimal surgical outcomes.