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.

Low-pressure monopolar electroresection of the prostate for glands sized > 70 vs. < 70 cc performed with continuous irrigation and suprapubic suction: perioperative and long-term outcome.

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of low-pressure transurethral resection of the prostate for prostates < 70 cc (group 1) vs. > 70 cc (group 2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study patients operated with monopolar TURP between 2009 and 2012 were evaluated retrospectively. During surgery a specially designed trocar (18 Fr) was placed suprapubically and connected to a suction pump to maintain stable low-pressure conditions. After sample size calculations, long-term follow-up was completed for 70 invited patients in each group up to 9/2015. RESULTS: Follow-up period was 57 vs. 56 months for group 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.56). At baseline there was no significant difference in age, IPSS, peak flow, and post void residual (PVR). Mean prostate volume was 47 cc (15-65) vs. 100 cc (70-163). Mean operating time was 55.4 vs. 82.6 min (p = 0.00). Blood transfusion was necessary in 0.0 vs. 2.9% (p = 0.16), and 0.0 vs. 1.4% developed TUR syndrome (p = 0.32). At follow-up mean relative improvement in IPSS was 63 vs. 57% (p = 0.29), QoL 64 vs. 64% (p = 0.93), peak flow 139 vs. 130% (p = 0.85), and PVR 58 vs. 63% (p = 0.80). Long-term complications included recurring adenoma in 1.4 vs. 4.3% (p = 0.31), and stricture in 7.2 vs. 5.8% (p = 0.73). 1 patient in each group reported worsening incontinence symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of safety and efficacy, the aforementioned modality of standardized monopolar TURP using suprapubic suction was non-inferior for prostates > 70 cc compared to the same procedure for prostates < 70 cc. This technique is a potential low-cost alternative for clinics that cannot afford modern laser approaches. STUDY REGISTER NUMBER: DRKS00006527.

Surgical therapy of prostatitis: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The clinical term "prostatitis" refers to a clinical syndrome defined by the following 4 distinct entities: acute bacterial prostatitis (category 1), chronic bacterial prostatitis (category 2), chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (category 3), and asymptomatic prostatitis (category 4) The etiology of the chronic forms is still not fully understood and choice of therapy is often debated. The objective of this systematic review is to collect evidence on the surgical treatment of the chronic form of prostatitis and to evaluate its clinical implication. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and identified 6683 relevant publications, of which 16 were included in the review. RESULTS: Transurethral prostate resection was performed in 110 patients; 78 patients (70%) were reported as "cured", 16 patients (15%) as improved, and 16 patients (15%) as unchanged. Radical prostatectomy was performed in 21 patients; a full resolution of prostatitis related symptoms was reported for 20 patients (95%). No increased rates of complications or unusual complications were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical therapy of chronic bacterial prostatitis or chronic pelvic pain syndrome might be a viable option; however, since little evidence is currently available and no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, the presently available data does not provide a base for clinical decisions.

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.

Prospective, randomized, multinational study of prostatic urethral lift versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 12-month results from the BPH6 study.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is considered the gold standard for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, TURP may lead to sexual dysfunction and incontinence, and has a long recovery period. Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is a treatment option that may overcome these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To compare PUL to TURP with regard to LUTS improvement, recovery, worsening of erectile and ejaculatory function, continence and safety (BPH6). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial at 10 European centers involving 80 men with BPH LUTS. INTERVENTION: PUL or TURP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The BPH6 responder endpoint assesses symptom relief, quality of recovery, erectile function preservation, ejaculatory function preservation, continence preservation, and safety. Noninferiority was evaluated using a one-sided lower 95% confidence limit for the difference between PUL and TURP performance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Preservation of ejaculation and quality of recovery were superior with PUL (p<0.01). Significant symptom relief was achieved in both treatment arms. The study demonstrated not only noninferiority but also superiority of PUL over TURP on the BPH6 endpoint. Study limitations were the small sample size and the inability to blind participants to enrollment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of individual BPH6 elements revealed that PUL was superior to TURP with respect to quality of recovery and preservation of ejaculatory function. PUL was superior to TURP according to the novel BPH6 responder endpoint, which needs to be validated in future studies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, participants who underwent prostatic urethral lift responded significantly better than those who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate as therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia with regard to important aspects of quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01533038.

Minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift: surgical technique and multinational experience.

BACKGROUND: Many men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are dissatisfied with current treatment options. Although transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains the gold standard, many patients seek a less invasive alternative. OBJECTIVE: We describe the surgical technique and results of a novel minimally invasive implant procedure that offers symptom relief and improved voiding flow in an international series of patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 102 men with symptomatic BPH were consecutively treated at seven centers across five countries. Patients were evaluated up to a median follow-up of 1 yr postprocedure. Average age, prostate size, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) were 68 yr, 48 cm(3), and 23, respectively. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: The prostatic urethral lift mechanically opens the prostatic urethra with UroLift implants that are placed transurethrally under cystoscopic visualization, thereby separating the encroaching prostatic lobes. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patients were evaluated pre- and postoperatively by the IPSS, Quality-of-Life (QOL) scale, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index, maximum flow rate (Qmax), and adverse event reports including sexual function. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All procedures were completed successfully with a mean of 4.5 implants without serious adverse effects. Patients experienced symptom relief by 2 wk that was sustained to 12 mo. Mean IPSS, QOL, and Qmax improved 36%, 39%, and 38% by 2 wk, and 52%, 53%, and 51% at 12 mo (p<0.001), respectively. Adverse events were mild and transient. There were no reports of loss of antegrade ejaculation. A total of 6.5% of patients progressed to TURP without complication. Study limitations include the retrospective single-arm nature and the modest patient number. CONCLUSIONS: Prostatic urethral lift has promise for BPH. It is minimally invasive, can be done under local anesthesia, does not appear to cause retrograde ejaculation, and improves symptoms and voiding flow. This study corroborates prior published results. Larger series with randomisation, comparator treatments, and longer follow-up are underway.