Durability of the Prostatic Urethral Lift: 2-Year Results of the L.I.F.T. Study

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.

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.

Rezum therapy for patients with large prostates (≥ 80 g): initial clinical experience and postoperative outcomes

PURPOSE

Rezum is a minimally invasive surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Current guidelines recommend Rezum for prostates < 80 cc, but little data exist describing outcomes in patients with prostates ≥ 80 cc. We compare outcomes after Rezum between men with small < 80 cc (SP) and large ≥ 80 cc prostates (LP).

METHODS

Patients undergoing Rezum between Jan 2017-Feb 2020 were subdivided by prostate volume (< 80, ≥ 80 cc). Outcomes were documented pre- and postoperatively. Descriptive analyses of urodynamics data (Qmax, PVR), symptom scores (AUA-SS, SHIM), disease management (medications, catheterization, retreatments), and clinical outcomes were conducted.

RESULTS

36 (17.6%) men had prostates ≥ 80 cc (LP mean prostate size 106.8 cc). LP men had improved Qmax and PVR postoperatively; those with longitudinal follow-up exhibited improved Qmax, PVR, and AUA-SS. After one year, alpha-blocker usage decreased significantly (LP 94.44-61.11%, p = 0.001, SP 73.96-46.15%, p = 0.001); other medication usage and self-catheterization rates remained unchanged. Compared to SP patients, differences in passing trial void (LP 94.44%, SP 93.45%), postoperative UTI (LP 19.44%, SP 10.12%), ED visits (LP 22.22%, SP 17.86%), readmissions (LP 8.33%, SP 4.76%), and retreatment (LP 8.33%, SP 4.76%) were insignificant. However, mean days to foley removal (LP 9, SP 5.71, p = 0.003) and urosepsis rates (LP 5.56%, SP 0.00%, p = 0.002) differed.

CONCLUSION

In select LP patients, Rezum provided short-term symptomatic relief and improved voiding function comparable to SP patients. Postoperatively, though alpha-blocker usage decreased significantly, use of other medications did not change, and nearly two-thirds of patients still needed alpha-blockade. Further efforts should explore the possibility of expanding Rezum's inclusion criteria.

Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to express continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows. Urologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores (MD of International Prostate Symptoms Score [IPSS]) compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence). Major adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence). Retreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). Erectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence). Ejaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). TURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may result in fewer major adverse events, especially in the case of PUL and PAE; resulting in better rankings for symptoms scores. PUL may result in fewer retreatments compared to other interventions, especially TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates at long-term follow-up. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.

An Indirect Comparison of Newer Minimally Invasive Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Network Meta-Analysis Model

Objective: This study was designed to provide an indirect comparison of the urinary and sexual domain outcomes and complications after newer minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) of Aquablation, Rezum, and UroLift for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for transurethral resection of prostate (TURP). Methods: We searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, in December 2019. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported outcomes after treatment of BPH for prostate less than 80 g with Aquablation, Rezum, or UroLift were included in the analysis. Results: A total of four RCTs reporting the outcomes after treatment with newer MIST for BPH were identified. Patients undergoing the resective procedures, that is, TURP and Aquablation, had greater improvement in urinary domain outcomes: International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life, peak flow rate, and postvoiding residual compared to patients undergoing nonresective procedures: UroLift and Rezum. Patients in UroLift group maintained a higher sexual function domain score compared to TURP, but not Aquablation. Our multiple comparison analysis did not reveal a significant difference in urinary and sexual domain scores between patients undergoing UroLift and Rezum at 24 months of follow-up. Conclusions: Aquablation and TURP necessitate general or regional anesthesia and both produced significantly better urinary domain scores compared to Rezum and UroLift. On the other hand, UroLift demonstrated better sexual function domain scores compared to TURP, but not Aquablation. There was no significant difference in urinary domain scores between UroLift and Rezum at 24 months of follow-up.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prostatic Urethral Lift for Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

CONTEXT

Recently, prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is being used to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Although preliminary clinical studies on PUL are increasing, the long-term efficacy and safety of this procedure are still not well evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study is to synthesize the existing literature evidence, and make a comprehensive and long-term systematic review for the PUL procedure.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search was performed from the electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and OVID. The search period was up to January 1, 2020. Comprehensive retrospective and prospective studies on PUL were collected in accordance with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pooled prostatic symptom scores, sexual health scores, and functional outcomes were calculated by using a fixed or random-effect model.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Nineteen articles meet our determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 11 independent patient series were included in the final analysis. Meta-analysis results indicated improvement after the PUL procedure, including International Prostate Symptom Score improvement of 9.73-12.16 points, BPH Impact Index improvement of 3.74-4.50 points, maximum flow rate improvement of 3.44-4.26 ml/s, and quality of life improvement of 2.20-2.55 points. Postvoid residual volume at most of the intervals was not significantly variable. Data regarding sexual function remained stable or improved slightly during the 24-mo follow-up period. Pooled estimates were largely heterogeneous except for sexual function.

CONCLUSIONS

PUL can continue to relieve prostatic symptoms for 24 mo without causing serious complications. The extremely important advantage of the PUL procedure is that it can preserve or slightly improve sexual function. Longer-term and more comprehensive clinical trials are still needed to further clarify the functional outcomes and cost effectiveness of PUL.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostatic urethral lift is an attractive option for selected patients who seek rapid and durable relief of lower urinary tract symptoms with complete preservation of sexual function.

Development of Research Agenda in Prostate Artery Embolization: Summary of Society of Interventional Radiology Consensus Panel

PURPOSE

To summarize the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation's Research Consensus Panel development of a research agenda on prostate artery embolization (PAE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PAE for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms has been shown to be safe and effective in decreasing symptoms and prostate size. Lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PAE in the United States has prevented inclusion in American Urologic Association guideline recommendations for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic hyperplasia. Recognizing the need for well-designed trials, the SIR Foundation funded a Research Consensus Panel to prioritize a research agenda. The panel included interventional radiologists, urologists, SIR Foundation leadership, and industry representatives. The goal of the meeting was to discuss weaknesses with current data and study design for development of US trials to report long-term outcomes data.

RESULTS

Final consensus on a research design could not be made because the group was split on 3 research designs: (i) RCT of PAE versus sham with crossover of the sham group. (ii) RCT of PAE versus simple prostatectomy. (iii) RCT of PAE versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate/thulium laser enucleation of the prostate. The panel recommended a nonindustry-funded registry to obtain real-world data.

CONCLUSIONS

Level 1 data are required to be included in the American Urologic Association guidelines for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Because of concerns with all 3 study designs, the panel did not reach a consensus. Further meetings are planned with the panel to select among these research designs.

Prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A recent addition to these is prostatic urethral lift (PUL).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PUL for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up until 31 January 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While we planned to include non-RCTs if RCTs had provided low-certainty evidence for a given outcome and comparison, we could not find any non-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs with 297 participants comparing PUL to sham surgery or TURP. The mean age was 65.6 years and mean International Prostate Symptom Score was 22.7. Mean prostate volume was 42.2 mL. We considered review outcomes measured up to and including 12 months after randomization as short-term and later than 12 months as long-term. For patient-reported outcomes, lower scores indicate more urological symptom improvement and higher quality of life. In contrast, higher scores refers to better erectile and ejaculatory function.PUL versus sham: based on one study of 206 randomized participants with short follow-up (up to three months), PUL may lead to a clinically important improvement in urological symptom scores (mean difference (MD) -5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.44 to -2.96; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves quality of life (MD -1.20, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether PUL increases major adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). There were no retreatments reported in either study group by three months. PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -1.40, 95% CI -3.24 to 0.44; moderate-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.38 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence).PUL versus TURP: based on one study of 91 randomized participants with a short follow-up (up to 12 months), PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom scores than TURP (MD 4.50, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.90; low-certainty evidence). PUL may result in a slightly reduced or similar quality of life (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to 1.09; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether PUL may cause fewer major adverse events but increased retreatments (both very low-certainty evidence). PUL probably results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 0.80, 95% CI -1.50 to 3.10; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 5.00, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.92; moderate-certainty evidence).With regards to longer term follow-up (up to 24 months) based on one study of 91 randomized participants, PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom score (MD 6.10, 95% CI 2.16 to 10.04; low-certainty evidence) and result in little worse to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on major adverse events. We are very uncertain whether PUL increases retreatment (very low-certainty evidence). PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.80 to 4.00; moderate-certainty evidence), but may result in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.17 to 6.43; low-certainty evidence).We were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses for either comparison.We found no evidence for other comparisons such as PUL versus laser ablation or enucleation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PUL appears less effective than TURP in improving urological symptoms both short-term and long term, while quality of life outcomes may be similar. The effect on erectile function appears similar but ejaculatory function may be better. We are uncertain about major adverse events short-term and found no long-term information. We are very uncertain about retreatment rates both short-term and long-term. We were unable to assess the effects of PUL in subgroups based on age, prostate size, or symptom severity and also could not assess how PUL compared to other surgical management approaches. Given the large numbers of alternative treatment modalities to treat men with LUTS secondary to BPH, this represents important information that should be shared with men considering surgical treatment.

Surgical Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA Guideline

PURPOSE

Male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is common in men and can have negative effects on quality of life (QoL). It is the hope that this Guideline becomes a reference on the effective evidence-based surgical management of LUTS/BPH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The evidence team searched Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) database to identify studies indexed between January 2007 and September 2017. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 1 in supplementary unabridged guideline, http://jurology.com/).

RESULTS

This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding management of LUTS/BPH utilizing surgery and minimally invasive surgical therapies; additional statements are made regarding diagnostic and pre-operative tests. Clinical statements are made in comparison to what is generally accepted as the gold standard (i.e. transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP]-monopolar and/or bipolar). This guideline is designed to be used in conjunction with the associated treatment algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence and the severity of LUTS increases as men age and is an important diagnosis in the healthcare of patients and the welfare of society. This document will undergo additional literature reviews and updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future surgical options continues to expand.

Prostatic Urethral Lift: A New Minimally Invasive Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

INTRODUCTION

Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The PUL procedure involves the placement of implants that retract the obstructing prostate lobes. This procedure achieves quantifiable improvements in functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL), while preserving erectile and ejaculatory functions.

METHODS

Seventeen patients diagnosed with BPH who had undergone the UroLift® procedure between March 2011 and June 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. The parameters evaluated in the pre-operative, intra-operative and 1-year post-operative period were demographic data, and pre-operative, intra-operative and 1-year post-operative results were obtained from the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Uroflowmetry QoL index, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ) for ejaculatory function (MSHQ-EjD).

RESULTS

The average improvements from baseline to 12 months after intervention were significant for the total IPSS 9.6. There was a 4.2-point increase in Qmax, a 0.9-point improvement in QoL and a 32% decrease in PVR. No statistically significant difference was found in the IIEF and MSHQ-EjD scores when the pre-operative and post-operative 3rd and 12th month scores were evaluated (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PUL offers rapid improvement in voiding and storage symptoms, QoL and flow rate that is durable to 12 months after intervention. PUL is a minimally invasive procedure that has the moderate effect in treating troublesome LUTS secondary to benign prostatic obstruction and preserving total sexual function.