Is water vapor thermal therapy safe and feasible in elderly and frail men? The Italian experience.

PURPOSE: In recent years, water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) has spread as minimally invasive technique in lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment. Even if its safety and feasibility have been largely proved in young men, nobody has proved the same feasibility and safety in the elderly (men older than 75 years old). Our aim is to compare WVTT safety outcomes in men older than 75 with younger men. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on men who underwent water vapor thermal therapy from 2019. We compared data on operative time, number of injections, intra-operative and post-operative complications, reinterventions rate. RESULTS: We enrolled 426 patients; among these, 60 were older than 75 years old, 366 were younger. Our cohorts of patients had similar results in terms of intra-operative and post-operative complications. Operative time accounts about 11 min for both groups (p = 0.535), total number of injections was seven for young men and eight for elderly (p = 0.314). We found no intra-operative complications in elderly men group and only one in the younger group (p = 0.678), while five younger men underwent clot retention, and two elderly men experienced this complication (p = 0.239). Only one transfusion occurred in the elderly group. No differences between groups occurred in terms of length of stay, post-operative urinary retention and reintervention rate, while catheterization time was longer in the elderly men. CONCLUSION: WVTT is a safe procedure in elderly patients with comparable intra-operative and post-operative complication rate in comparison with younger patients.

Do Patients Treated with Water Vapor Therapy and Meeting Randomized Clinical Trial Criteria Have Better Urinary and Sexual Outcomes Than an Unselected Cohort?

Introduction: Water vapor intraprostatic injection (Rezum procedure) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most promising minimally invasive surgical treatments. Five-year outcomes from the multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated significant and durable urinary and sexual function results in selected patients. We compared the sexual and urinary outcomes of this procedure in patients satisfying inclusion criteria of the RCT with unselected patients. Materials and Methods: We prospectively followed all patients with symptomatic BPH who underwent Rezum therapy at eight institutions and analyzed the functional results. Patients were divided into two groups: patients who matched the 5-year RCT inclusion criteria (Group A) and patients who did not (Group B). The pre- and postoperative data, complications, presence of antegrade ejaculation, and urinary and sexual outcomes were periodically recorded. Results: A total of 426 patients were eligible for the study (232 in Group A and 194 in Group B). Patients in Group B had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score, prostate volume, and postvoid residual measurement. No difference was found in terms of preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, maximum urinary flow, and prostate-specific antigen. Longer operative time and higher number of vapor injections were required in Group B, with no differences in hospital stay, injection density, and complication rates. All the urinary and sexual outcomes improved with no differences between the two groups. The reintervention rate at the latest follow-up visit was 2.6% in Group A and 3.1% in Group B. Conclusions: In our large multicenter series, water vapor intraprostatic injections showed a safe and effective profile regardless of the prostate size, presence of indwelling catheter, antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications, and patients' comorbidities.