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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of photoselective green light laser vaporisation versus traditional transurethral resection for benign prostate hyperplasia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and prospective studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of green-light laser photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library until October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and prospective studies comparing the safety and efficacy of PVP versus TURP for LUTS manifesting through BPH. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Perioperative parameters, complications rates and functional outcomes including treatment-related adverse events such as International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR), quality of life (QoL) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). RESULTS: 22 publications consisting of 2665 patients were analysed. Pooled analysis revealed PVP is associated with reduced blood loss, transfusion, clot retention, TUR syndrome, capsular perforation, catheterisation time and hospitalisation, but also with a higher reintervention rate and longer intervention duration (all p<0.05). No significant difference in IPSS, Qmax, QoL, PVR or IIEF at 3, 24, 36 or 60 months was identified. There was a significant difference in QoL at 6 months (MD=-0.08; 95% CI -0.13 to -0.02; p=0.007), and IPSS (MD = -0.10; 95% CI -0.15 to -0.05; p<0.0001) and Qmax (MD=0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.19; p=0.03) at 12 months, although these differences were not clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: PVP is an effective alternative, holding additional safety benefits. PVP has equivalent long-term IPSS, Qmax, QoL, PVR, IIEF efficacy and fewer complications. The main drawbacks are dysuria and reintervention, although both can be managed with non-invasive techniques. The additional shortcoming is that PVP does not acquire histological tissue examination which removes an opportunity to identify prostate cancer.

Medical evaluation and management of male and female voiding dysfunction: a review.

A significant workforce shortage of urologists available to serve the US population has been projected to occur over the next decade. Accordingly, much of the management of urologic patients will need to be assumed by other specialties and practitioners. Since primary care physicians are often first evaluate common urologic complaints, it makes sense that these physicians are in an excellent position to intervene in the management of these patients when appropriate. One of the most common complaints in urology is voiding dysfunction. The incidence of voiding dysfunction increases with age, with conservative estimates showing that over 50% of elderly patients suffer. Despite this high prevalence and its negative impact on quality of life, however, few seek or receive treatment, as many do not readily disclose these impactful yet personal symptoms. We sought to summarize the typical presentation, evaluation, assessment and therapeutic options for both male and female patients presenting with voiding dysfunction.

Is obstructive sleep apnea syndrome related to nocturia?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: This multicenter study was performed on 122 male patients with dyspnea and/or sleep disorder. Patient characteristics were recorded. All patients underwent full-night polysomnography, and the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was calculated. LUTS were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and prostate volume was calculated by transabdominal ultrasonography. Based on the AHI, patients were classified as normal or as having mild, moderate, or severe OSAS. Regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictive factors associated with nocturia. RESULTS: Severe, moderate, and mild OSAS was present in 53, nine, and 46 patients, respectively, where 14 patients with dyspnea and sleep disorder were classified as normal. There were no significant differences between the severe and mild OSAS groups with regard to age, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, smoking history, fluid intake, and serum creatinine and glucose concentrations. However, there was a significant difference between two groups in AHI (P < 0.001), nocturia (P < 0.001), and nocturnal voided volume (P = 0.011). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that age, smoking history, and an AHI >15 were independent predictors of nocturia. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep disorders are thought to be one reason for nocturia and nocturnal polyuria. Thus, OSAS must be considered in BPH patients who predominantly have storage symptoms.

Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) for obstructive median lobes: 12 month results of the MedLift Study.

Evidence indicating Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) delivers significant improvement in symptomatic BPH with low morbidity is based on subjects with lateral lobe (LL) enlargement only. MedLift was an FDA IDE extension of the L.I.F.T. randomized study designed to examine safety and efficacy of PUL for treatment of obstructive middle lobes (OML). Inclusion criteria for this non-randomized cohort were identical to the L.I.F.T. randomized study, except for requiring an OML: ≥ 50 years of age, IPSS ≥ 13, and Qmax ≤ 12 ml/s. Primary endpoint analysis quantified improvement in IPSS over baseline and rate of post-procedure serious complications. Quantification of symptom relief, quality of life, flow rate, and sexual function occurred through 12 months. Outcomes were compared to historical L.I.F.T LL results and were combined to demonstrate the full effectiveness of PUL. Of the 71 screened subjects, 45 were enrolled. At 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, mean IPSS improved from baseline at least 13.5 points (p < 0.0001). Quality of life and BPHII were similarly improved (>60% and >70%, respectively at 3, 6, and 12 months, p < 0.0001). Mean Qmax improvement ranged from 90 to 129% (p < 0.0001). At 1 month, 86% (CI 73-94%) reported ≥70 on the Quality of Recovery scale, 80% (CI 66-89%) reported being "much" or "very much better," and 89% (CI 76-95%) would recommend the procedure. Compared to LL subjects, OML subjects' symptoms improved at least as much at every time point (OML range 13.5-15.9, LL range 9.9-11.1, p ≤ 0.01). On combining OML with LL data, >70% (range CI 63-81%) of subjects demonstrated ≥ 8 point improvement in IPSS through 12 months. Analysis of the combined dataset indicates ≥ 40% (CI 30-51%) of sexually active men improved the minimal clinically important difference in erectile function through 12 months. Prostates, including those with middle lobe obstruction, can be treated with the PUL procedure safely and effectively.

Effect of tadalafil add-on therapy in patients with persistant storage symptoms refractory to α1 -adrenoceptor antagonist monotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: A randomized pilot trial comparing tadalafil and solifenacin.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of tadalafil add-on therapy with α1 -adrenoceptor antagonists. METHODS: Patients with persistent storage symptoms refractory to α1 -adrenoceptor antagonists for benign prostatic hyperplasia were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to either a 5 mg tadalafil or 5 mg solifenacin treatment group for 12 weeks. International Prostate Symptom Score, Overactive Bladder Symptom Score, urinary flow rates, residual urine volume, and blood pressure were measured prospectively before treatment and after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. Changes from baseline were compared between groups. The rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 75 patients recruited to the study, 38 and 37 were assigned to the tadalafil and solifenacin groups, respectively. There were no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The change in the amount of residual urine volume was significantly larger in the solifenacin- than tadalafil-treated group; other parameters, including lower urinary tract symptoms and uroflowmetry measures, did not differ significantly between the two groups. Seven (18%) and 12 (32%) patients in the tadalafil and solifenacin groups, respectively, discontinued treatment because of adverse events. The main reasons for discontinuation in the tadalafil group were stomach discomfort or nausea and dizziness or vertigo; voiding difficulty and constipation were the main reasons for discontinuation in the solifenacin group. There was no significant difference in blood pressure fluctuations from baseline between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tadalafil add-on therapy was not inferior to solifenacin add-on therapy in terms of effect and safety. Therefore, tadalafil could be an alternative add-on drug for patients with persistent lower urinary tract symptoms refractory to α1 -adrenoceptor antagonists.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Prostatic Urethral Lift: Does Size Matter?

OBJECTIVES: To assess if prostatic urethral lift (PUL) can be as effective on larger prostates. PUL is an endoscopic device that retracts prostatic tissue to relieve benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) obstruction. In 2013, PUL was approved for patients with a prostate size of <80 g and no median lobes. The approval was primarily based on the L.I.F.T. study, which only evaluated patients with prostates between 30 and 80 g in size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-four patients underwent PUL between April 2, 2014, and December 2, 2015, for BPH management. Fifty-one patients were in the <80 g prostate group (median: 46 g, range: 20-78 g) and 23 in the >80 g prostate group (median: 112 g, range: 81-254 g). Student t-tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables. p-Value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Median time between PUL and follow-up AUA symptom score (AUASS) was 144 days. A difference between the numbers of PUL implants used was seen. A significant improvement in AUASSs was seen in both groups following the procedure. There was no significant difference in age, AUASS before or after the procedure, or need for an additional outlet procedure between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Early experience finds that a sufficient number of men with larger prostates appear to benefit from PUL. Patients with >80 g prostate size were more likely to have a median lobe and may benefit from resection of the median lobe at time of the PUL. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate the durability of the PUL procedure.

A Novel Technique for Robotic Simple Prostatectomy: An Evolution of Retzius-sparing Technique.

OBJECTIVE: To present a novel surgical concept by using the trans-Douglas approach to perform a robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for high-volume benign prostate hyperplasia. This transposition from oncological surgery enables performance of a better bladder neck sparing adenomectomy with good functional results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The index patient is a 67-year-old man with a history of severe urinary flow outlet obstruction. Combination medical therapy is not effective. Transrectal ultrasound scan detected a 130-cm3 enlarged prostate with middle lobe. The International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) was 30. The patient was scheduled for a RASP with a trans-Douglas approach to preserve the bladder neck. The patient was put in 30° Trendelenburg position. Six ports were placed across the lower abdomen: four 8-mm robotic trocars and 2 assistant trocars (12 and 5 mm). The parietal peritoneum was incised at the anterior surface of the Douglas space, according to the access to the prostate described by Bocciardi. The Denonvillier fascia was opened, seminal vesicles were exposed, and above the vesicles, the prostatic capsule was incised. The adenoma, together with the middle lobe, was split by the capsule from the base to the verumontanum. The bladder neck was advanced and remodeled to the distal urethral mucosa and then closed to the prostatic capsule by a double-layer suture. The peritoneal breach was closed. RESULTS: The operation time was 120 minutes. Blood loss was 80 cc. There was no perioperative or postoperative complication. The catheter was removed after 4 days. Uroflowmetry showed a peak flow of 30 mL/s. Pathologic examination was negative for tumor. After 60 days, the IPSS score was 8. CONCLUSION: Trans-Douglas-RASP is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for benign prostate hyperplasia. It is a novel technique to perform bladder neck sparing prostatic adenomectomy and could be 1 more field of application of robotic technology.

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.

Comparative Results of Transurethral Incision with Transurethral Resection of The Prostate in Renal Transplant Recipients with Benign Prostate Hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the results of transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the surgical treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) in patients with renal transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2009 and May 2016, BPH patients with renal transplants whose prostate volumes were less than 30 cm3 were treated surgically. Forty-seven patients received TURP and 32 received TUIP. The patients' age, duration of dialysis, duration between transplant and TURP/TUIP, preoperative and postoperative serum creatinine (SCr), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax) and postvoidresidual volume (PVR) were recorded. At 1-,6- and 12-month follow-up, early and long-term complications were assessed. Results were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: In both groups, SCr, PVR and IPSS decreased significantly after the operation, while Qmax increased significantly (P < .001). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of increase in Qmax and decrease in IPSS, SCr and PVR (P = .89, P = .27, P = .08, and P = .27). Among postoperative complications, urinary tract infection (UTIs) and retrograde ejaculation (RE) rates were higher in the TURP group than the TUIP group (12.7% versus 6.2% and 68.1% versus 25%,respectively), whereas urethral strictures were more prevalent in the TUIP group (12.5% versus 6.3%). CONCLUSION: For the treatment of BPH in renal transplant patients with a prostate volume less than 30 cm3, bothTUIP and TURP are safe and effective.