Multiparametric-magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) of the prostate and Urolift: Identifying artefact size, location and clinical implications.

Objectives: We sought to define the degree of artefact caused by prostatic urethral lift (PUL) on multiparametric-magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) to determine the location, size of artefact and if the device could potentially obscure a diagnosis of prostate cancer. Methods: Ten patients were prospectively enrolled to undergo PUL for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and follow-up imaging. A standard mp-MRI protocol using a 3.0 Tesla scanner was performed prior to and following Urolift insertion. Pre- and post-PUL images were compared to measure maximum artefact diameter around each implant in each MRI parameter. A transverse relaxation time weighted (T2) artefact reduction protocol was also evaluated. The location of each artefact was then compared to a separate database of 225 consecutive patients who underwent magnetic resonance guided prostate biopsies. Results: Artefact occurred around the stainless steel urethral implant component only. Mean T2 artefact maximum diameter was 7.7 mm (sd = 1.71 mm), with an artefact reduction protocol reducing this to 5.4 mm (sd = 1.43). Mean dynamic-contrast-enhancement artefact was 10 mm (sd = 2.5 mm), and mean diffusion-weighted-imaging artefact was 28.2 mm (sd = 7.8 mm). All artefacts were confined to the posterior transition zone only. In the 225 consecutive patients who had undergone magnetic resonance guided prostate biopsies, there were 55 positive biopsies with prostate cancer, with 13 cases found in the transition zones and no cancer identified solely in the posterior transitional zone. Conclusions: The stainless steel urethral component of the PUL does cause artefact, which is confined to the posterior transition zone only. PUL artefact occurs in an area of the prostate that has a very low incidence of a single focus of prostate cancer. If there is concern for prostate cancer in the posterior TZ (e.g. if every other area is clear with a high PSA), this area can undergo targeted biopsy.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: implications for Japan's public healthcare system.

AIMS: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) represents a significant public health issue in Japan. This study evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of water vapor energy therapy (WAVE) versus prostatic urethral lift (PUL) for men with moderate-to-severe BPH from a public healthcare payer's perspective in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytic model compared WAVE to PUL among males in Japan. Clinical effectiveness and adverse event (AE) inputs were obtained from a systematic literature review. Resource utilization and cost inputs were derived from the Medical Data Vision database and medical service fee national data in Japan. Experts reviewed and validated model input parameters. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine how changes in the values of uncertain parameters affect the model results. RESULTS: Throughout patients' lifetimes, WAVE was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (0.920 vs. 0.911 year 1; 15.564 vs. 15.388 lifetime) and lower total costs (¥734,134 vs. ¥888,110 year 1; ¥961,595 vs. ¥1,429,458 lifetime) compared to PUL, indicating that WAVE is a more effective and less costly (i.e. dominant) treatment strategy across all time horizons. Lifetime cost-savings for the Japanese healthcare system per patient treated with WAVE instead of PUL were ¥467,863. The 32.7% cost difference between WAVE and PUL was predominantly driven by lower WAVE surgical retreatment rates (4.9% vs. 19.2% for WAVE vs PUL, respectively, at 5 years) and AE rates (hematuria 11.8% vs. 25.7%, dysuria 16.9% vs. 34.3%, pelvic pain 2.9% vs. 17.9%, and urinary incontinence 0.4% vs. 1.3% for WAVE vs PUL, respectively, at 3 months). Model findings were robust to changes in parameter input values. LIMITATIONS: The model represents a simplification of complex factors involved in resource allocation decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Driven by lower retreatment and AE rates, WAVE was a cost-effective and cost-saving treatment for moderate-to-severe BPH in Japan compared to PUL, providing better outcomes at lower costs to the healthcare system.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is an important public health issue in Japan, given its high prevalence and potential morbidity in a rapidly aging population. This study compared the clinical and economic outcomes of two minimally invasive surgical treatments for BPH (water vapor energy therapy [WAVE] vs. prostatic urethral lift [PUL]) for patients in Japan. Clinical effectiveness and adverse event (AE) information from published medical literature, and real-world health services and cost data from Japan, were used to estimate the impact of the two treatments. Compared to PUL, WAVE was found to provide better clinical outcomes and quality-of-life for patients whilst costing less to the Japanese healthcare system. Patients treated with WAVE had higher lifetime quality-adjusted life years vs. patients treated with PUL (15.564 vs. 15.388). Lifetime cost-savings for the Japanese healthcare system per patient treated with WAVE instead of PUL were estimated to be ¥467,863. The 32.7% cost difference between WAVE and PUL was predominantly driven by lower retreatment rates for WAVE (surgical retreatment rate was 4.9% vs. 19.2% for WAVE vs. PUL, respectively, at 5 years) and AE rates (AE rates at 3 months for WAVE vs. PUL, respectively, were: hematuria 11.8% vs. 25.7%, dysuria 16.9% vs. 34.3%, pelvic pain 2.9% vs. 17.9%, and urinary incontinence 0.4% vs. 1.3%). These findings provide evidence-based insights for clinicians, payers, and health policymakers to further define the role of WAVE for BPH in Japan.

National Trends in Surgical Management for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia From 2013 to 2019 in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common urologic pathology for older men. The prevalence and effect on quality of life have prompted the development of new surgical procedures to manage BPH while attempting to minimize treatment side effects. The objective of this study is to utilize TriNetX, a third-party database, to investigate temporal trends in BPH procedures from 2013 to 2019 in the United States. METHODS: Male patients aged 18 to 100 who were diagnosed with BPH from 2013 to 2019 were filtered from the TriNetX Diamond Network. Yearly cohorts undergoing a BPH-related procedure were searched using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision codes. Temporal and descriptive analytics were utilized to describe trends in treatment utilization. RESULTS: There were 302,646 BPH procedures recorded on the TriNetX Diamond Network. Transurethral resection of the prostate was the most commonly performed procedure, accounting for 47.2% of procedures in 2013 and 44.9% in 2019. Photoselective vaporization of the prostate remained a popular treatment but showed the greatest decrease in utilization over time (31.8% in 2013, 21.5% in 2019). Prostatic urethral lift (UroLift) was rapidly embraced as a treatment modality, as usage increased by 18.3% over a 6-year period (0.0% in 2014, up to 18.3% in 2019). Other procedures such as Rezum (5.8%) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (5.1%) made up greater proportions of BPH procedures by 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Transurethral resection of the prostate was the most common procedure from 2013 to 2019. However, minimally invasive surgeries represent an increased percentage of BPH surgeries every year.

Incidence of Surgical Reintervention for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Following Prostatic Urethral Lift, Transurethral Resection of the Prostate, and Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate: A TriNetX Analysis.

Background: Prostatic urethral lift, or UroLift, has gained popularity as a treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Surgical reintervention rates are a reliable indicator for treatment durability. Objective: The objective of this study was to utilize TriNetX, a third-party database, to investigate the incidence of surgical reintervention following UroLift, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) procedures for BPH from 2015 to 2018. Design setting and participants: Male patients aged 18-100 yr diagnosed with BPH were identified in the TriNetX Diamond Network database between January 2015 and December 2018. Cohorts of individuals undergoing their first UroLift procedure were built using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision codes. TURP and PVP cohorts were built as comparison groups. The cohorts were then queried for subsequent BPH-related procedures. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Reprocedure rates were assessed and descriptive statistics were used. Results and limitations: The mean age at first-time UroLift was 70.1 ± 9.4 yr (n = 14 343). Cumulative reprocedure rates collected after first-time UroLift included 1 yr after UroLift (5.1%, n = 14 343) and 4 yr after UroLift (16.1%, n = 710), with an average annual increase of +3.6% per year following 1 yr after the procedure. Comparatively, TURP (n = 22 071) and PVP (n = 14 110) had 4-yr reprocedure rates of 7.5% and 7.8%, respectively, during the same timeframe. Limitations include a lack of clinical data and loss of follow-up data outside the Diamond Network. Conclusions: The reprocedure rate of UroLift at 4 yr is double the rate of TURP and PVP. In appropriately selected patients, UroLift might be a suitable option for those who desire symptomatic relief from BPH with minimal erectile and ejaculatory side effects. However, the risk of secondary surgical intervention should be considered when considering BPH treatments. Patient summary: We compared the reintervention rates of prostatic urethral lift (PUL), transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) using the TriNetX database, and have found that the highest reintervention rates were for PUL of 16% at 4 yr of follow-up, compared with about 8% for those who had TURP and PVP. Interestingly, the most common reintervention was the same operation at 1 yr. This has important implications when counseling patients about the durability of these various outlet procedures for BPH.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate as a secondary surgery following prostatic urethral lift.

Introduction: Prostatic urethral lift is a treatment option for benign prostatic hyperplasia, yet information on surgeries following this procedure is scarce. Case presentation: A 71-year-old man with persistent urinary retention following prostatic urethral lift underwent a secondary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. The morcellation procedure, complicated by the presence of implants from the previous surgery, broke the morcellator blade. The fragmented blade was successfully retrieved without any organ damage. Postoperatively, the patient encountered no complications and showed improvement in his urinary symptoms. Conclusion: This case highlights the potential risk of device breakage when a secondary surgery, specifically the morcellation process, is performed following prostatic urethral lift. Care must be taken to prevent interaction between the implants and the morcellator. Our case demonstrates the efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate as a salvage surgical intervention for patients in whom prostatic urethral lift has failed.

Two cases of pelvic hematoma after prostatic urethral lift surgery.

Introduction: There are few reports of pelvic hematoma after prostatic urethral lift. Here, we report two cases of pelvic hematoma in Japan. Case presentation: The first case was a 71-year-old man with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent prostatic urethral lift. Although the procedure was uneventful, he experienced lower abdominal pain the day after the operation. CT revealed a hematoma in the right pelvis; however, it was manageable with conservative treatment. The second case was a 68-year-old man. The procedure was uneventful; however, 6 days after the operation, a subcutaneous hematoma appeared in the lower abdomen. CT revealed a hematoma in the left pelvis. We then performed pelvic hematoma removal surgery. Conclusions: Pelvic hematomas after PUL may requires attention, particularly in men with the narrow pelvises. Appropriate compression of the prostate and a high lithotomy position procedure could effectively avoid the occurrence of pelvic hematomas.

Prostatic urethral lift for subjects in urinary retention (PULSAR): 12-Month results of a prospective controlled trial compared with real-world outcomes.

Objective: To examine the safety and efficacy of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) in acute urinary retention (AUR) patients within a controlled (PULSAR) and real-world setting (Real-World Retrospective study). Materials and methods: PULSAR was a 12-month prospective study of PUL in AUR patients (n = 51) performed at six centres in the United Kingdom; enrolled BPH patients aged ≥50 years, with prostate volume of ≤100 cc. AUR was defined as being catheter dependent with at least one prior failed trial without catheter (TWOC) while on an alpha-blocker. RWR consisted of 3226 consecutive PUL patients across 22 international sites treated between July 2017 and March 2020; 469 of whom were in urinary retention (RWRr), that is, catheter-dependent at the time of their procedure. Symptom response, uroflow and catheter independence rates were compared between PULSAR and RWRr subjects. A logistical regression model was constructed to evaluate patient baseline and dynamic factors predicting success after the procedure. Results: Seventy-three percent of PULSAR subjects were catheter independent and free from surgical reintervention at 12 months post-PUL. Success was associated with higher voiding efficiency during the perioperative period. Slightly higher catheter-independent rates (80%) were seen in RWRr patients; variables that influenced success included age <70 years, lower baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA), lower baseline post-void residual (PVR) and shorter pre-procedural catheter duration. Logistic regression of the combined PULSAR and RWRr retention groups revealed that procedural age <70 years and higher bladder voiding efficiency (BVE) were associated with success. Conclusions: Lower baseline PSA and PVR, younger age and shorter pre-procedure catheter durations drove successful outcomes in AUR patients undergoing PUL. Post-PUL voiding efficiencies may help ascertain long-term response to treatment.

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.

Emerging Technologies for the Surgical Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Obstruction. A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)/benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) aims at ablating prostate adenoma by resection, enucleation, or vaporisation. Apart from established ablation modes according to the European Association of Urology guidelines, various technologies have emerged as safe/effective alternatives but remain under investigation. OBJECTIVE: To explore short-term benefits/harms of emerging technologies for surgical management of LUTS/BPO. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL via Ovid up to June 18, 2022. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exploring aquablation, prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), Rezum, prostatic urethral lift (PUL), and temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND) versus sham/transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included ten RCTs (1108 men). Aquablation versus TURP: insignificant change in International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS; mean difference [MD] 0.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.44 to 2.44), quality of life (QoL; MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.21), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax; MD -0.30, 95% CI -3.71 to 3.11), retreatment (risk ratio [RR] 0.18, 95% CI 0.02-1.66), and urinary incontinence (UI; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26-1.95). PAE versus monopolar TURP (M-TURP): insignificant change in IPSS (MD 3.33, 95% CI -28.39 to 35.05), QoL (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.54), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5; MD 3.07, 95% CI -1.78 to 7.92), and UI (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01-2.86), and significant change in Qmax (MD -9.52, 95% CI -14.04 to -5.0), favouring M-TURP. PAE versus bipolar TURP: insignificant change in IPSS (MD -2.80, 95% CI -6.61 to 1.01), QoL (MD -0.69, 95% CI -1.46 to 0.08), Qmax (MD -3.51, 95% CI -8.08 to 1.06), UI (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-2.51), and retreatment (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.19-19.63). PUL versus TURP: insignificant change in QoL (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.29 to 1.09), UI (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-1.05), and retreatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12-1.86), and significant change in IPSS (MD 3.40, 95% CI 0.22-6.58), and IIEF-5 (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.41-5.59) and Qmax (MD -9.60, 95% CI -13.44 to -5.76), favouring PUL and TURP, respectively. Rezum and iTIND have not been evaluated in RCTs against TURP to date. CONCLUSIONS: Supporting evidence for clinical use of aquablation, PAE, PUL, Rezum, and iTIND is very limited. Benefits/harms should be investigated further in high-quality RCTs. PATIENT SUMMARY: This review summarises the evidence for the clinical use of aquablation, prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), Rezum, and temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND) to manage lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. The supporting evidence for the clinical usage of aquablation, PAE, PUL, Rezum, and iTIND is very limited. Benefits and harms should be investigated further in high-quality randomised controlled trials.

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.

Angioembolization for massive pelvic hematoma after prostatic urethral lift.

Introduction: Pelvic hematomas are a rare complication of prostatic urethral lift. We would like to report the first case of massive pelvic hematoma after prostatic urethral lift that was successfully managed by selective angioembolization. Case presentation: An 83-year-old gentleman with benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent prostatic urethral lift. Although the procedure was uneventful, he developed shock while in the recovery room. Urgent contrast computed tomography scan showed a large heterogenous hematoma at the right pelvis extending to the right retroperitoneum with contrast extravasation noted. Urgent angiogram confirmed extravasation from the right prostatic artery. Angioembolization with coils and 33% N-butyl cyanoacrylate glue was successfully performed. Conclusion: Prostatic urethral lift can be complicated by the rare massive pelvic hematoma, possibly more common in small prostates. With a prompt contrast computed tomography scan, pelvic hematomas can be managed with angioembolization first and hopefully prevent open exploratory surgery.

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.

Bilateral Knee Septic Arthritis after Prostatic Urethral Lift: A Case Report.

Introduction: Septic arthritis (SA) is a rare clinical entity that can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Recent years have seen a rise in minimally invasive surgical therapy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, including prostatic urethral lift. We report a case of bilateral simultaneous SA of the knees, following a prostatic urethral lift procedure. SA following a urologic procedure has not previously been reported. Case Report: A 79-year-old male presented to the Emergency Department through an ambulance with bilateral knee pain with associated fever and chills. Two weeks before presentation, he had undergone a prostatic urethral lift, cystoscopy, and Foley catheter placement. The examination was remarkable for bilateral knee effusions. Arthrocentesis was performed, and the synovial fluid analysis was consistent with a diagnosis of SA. Conclusion: This case emphasizes the need for frontline clinicians to consider SA in patients presenting with joint pain as a rare complication of prostatic instrumentation.

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.

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.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacotherapy versus prostatic urethral lift as initial therapy for patients with moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia.

AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an upfront minimally invasive surgical procedure, the prostatic urethral lift (PUL), as an initial treatment for patients with moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), against current first-line pharmacotherapy with combination medical therapy. METHOD: A micro-simulation model was developed using TreeAge Pro to compare two treatment strategies - initial treatment with combination medical therapy (alpha-blocker + 5-ARI) versus an upfront prostatic urethral lift procedure. The impact on disease progression, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was analyzed. A Markov model and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to estimate the costs and effects of the different strategies. The cost-effectiveness of the strategies at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds was then examined. RESULTS: Incremental costs (versus no prostatic urethral lift) were S$13,600 (1 year) and S$8,700 (5 years). Incremental QALYs were 0.07 (1 year) and 0.22 (5 years). An upfront PUL procedure was more expensive but also more effective than pharmacotherapy, with an incremental cost per QALY gain of approximately S$39,400. It is a cost-effective treatment option at the willingness-to-pay threshold of S$50,000. CONCLUSION: Prostatic urethral lift is a cost-effective initial treatment option for men with moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Prostatic Urethral Lift for Obstructive Median Lobes: Consistent Results Across Controlled Trial and Real-World Settings.

Introduction: The evidence for prostatic urethral lift (PUL), in treating lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in men with obstructive median lobes (OMLs), has grown. In this study, we present the first detailed comparison of outcomes between OML patients treated with PUL in controlled and real-world settings to relevant comparators (subjects treated with transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP] and sham in randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) to demonstrate similar symptom, safety, and patient experience outcomes. Materials and Methods: Symptom and safety outcomes and patient satisfaction were compared through 12 months among controlled PUL studies: BPH6 RCT (35 men randomized to TURP); L.I.F.T. pivotal RCT in subjects with lateral lobe obstruction (66 subjects randomized to sham) and MedLift, an U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) extension of the L.I.F.T. trial (45 men with OML). Symptom improvement, catheterization, and adverse event rates were compared between MedLift subjects and OML patients (n = 187) from the large real-world retrospective (RWR) study of PUL filtered on baseline characteristics to approximate the MedLift population. Results: Posttreatment, International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) improvement for MedLift subjects was 170% greater compared with sham at 3 months with significantly better quality of life (QoL), Qmax, and benign prostatic hyperplasia impact index (BPHII). Compared with TURP, MedLift IPSS and QoL improved significantly better at 1 and 3 months and with superior ejaculatory function scores at all time points after PUL. IPSS, QoL, postvoid residual (PVR), and Qmax outcomes were equivalent between MedLift and RWR OML groups at 3, 6, and 12 months. RWR OML patients did not experience higher rates of overall adverse events compared with MedLift. Conclusion: Controlled and real-world outcomes confirm PUL is a safe and effective treatment for BPH patients with and without OML.