Phuong U Tran1, Amanda S J Chung2,3. 1. Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Department of Urology, Royal North Shore Hospital, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. amandashujun.chung@gmail.com. 3. Department of Urology, Macquarie University Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. amandashujun.chung@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: When medications fail to satisfactorily treat bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), procedural treatments are indicated. There is much interest in minimally invasive office-based treatments which can be performed under local anesthesia, allow fast recovery and have minimal morbidity. The purpose of this article is to review recent literature regarding safety and efficacy of office-based minimally invasive therapies for BPO. METHODS: A literature search using PUBMED and Medline was performed regarding minimally invasive office-based treatments for BPO, including the prostatic urethral lift (Urolift), water vapor therapy (Rezum) and stents. Literature published within the last 5 years were reviewed. RESULTS: The prostatic urethral lift (Urolift) is a safe and efficacious treatment for LUTS-BPO whilst also preserving sexual function. Rezum appears to be a safe and effective treatment in Phase 2 trials. Memokath prostatic stents do not appear to be a durable treatment; Allium prostatic stents warrant further investigation prior to recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The prostatic urethral lift (Urolift) is a safe and effective treatment for LUTS-BPO whilst preserving sexual function. Rezum also appears to be a safe and effective treatment in small RCTs comparing performance with TURP. Memokath prostatic stents do not appear to have treatment durability. Further studies would be warranted to determine whether Allium prostatic stents are safe effective treatments for LUTS-BPO.
PURPOSE: When medications fail to satisfactorily treat bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), procedural treatments are indicated. There is much interest in minimally invasive office-based treatments which can be performed under local anesthesia, allow fast recovery and have minimal morbidity. The purpose of this article is to review recent literature regarding safety and efficacy of office-based minimally invasive therapies for BPO. METHODS: A literature search using PUBMED and Medline was performed regarding minimally invasive office-based treatments for BPO, including the prostatic urethral lift (Urolift), water vapor therapy (Rezum) and stents. Literature published within the last 5 years were reviewed. RESULTS: The prostatic urethral lift (Urolift) is a safe and efficacious treatment for LUTS-BPO whilst also preserving sexual function. Rezum appears to be a safe and effective treatment in Phase 2 trials. Memokath prostatic stents do not appear to be a durable treatment; Allium prostatic stents warrant further investigation prior to recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The prostatic urethral lift (Urolift) is a safe and effective treatment for LUTS-BPO whilst preserving sexual function. Rezum also appears to be a safe and effective treatment in small RCTs comparing performance with TURP. Memokath prostatic stents do not appear to have treatment durability. Further studies would be warranted to determine whether Allium prostatic stents are safe effective treatments for LUTS-BPO.
Authors: Claus G Roehrborn; Daniel B Rukstalis; Jack Barkin; Steven N Gange; Neal D Shore; Jonathan L Giddens; Damien M Bolton; Barrett E Cowan; Anthony L Cantwell; Kevin T McVary; Alexis E Te; Shahram S Gholami; William G Moseley; Peter T Chin; William T Dowling; Sheldon J Freedman; Peter F Incze; K Scott Coffield; Fernando D Borges; Prem Rashid Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Lance A Mynderse; Dennis Hanson; Richard A Robb; Dalibor Pacik; Viteslav Vit; Gabriel Varga; Lennart Wagrell; Magnus Tornblom; Edwin Rijo Cedano; David A Woodrum; Christopher M Dixon; Thayne R Larson Journal: Urology Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Kevin T McVary; Steven N Gange; Marc C Gittelman; Kenneth A Goldberg; Kalpesh Patel; Neal D Shore; Richard M Levin; Michael Rousseau; J Randolf Beahrs; Jed Kaminetsky; Barrett E Cowan; Christopher H Cantrill; Lance A Mynderse; James C Ulchaker; Thayne R Larson; Christopher M Dixon; Claus G Roehrborn Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-11-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher M Dixon; Edwin Rijo Cedano; Dalibor Pacik; Vítězslav Vit; Gabriel Varga; Lennart Wagrell; Thayne R Larson; Lance A Mynderse Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2016-11-21