4th Annual Jefferson Urology Symposium: Focus on Urinary Incontinence

© The Canadian Journal of Urology TM : International Supplement, August 2021 undergoing PUL over Rezum with regards to sexual function, catheterization rates, recovery rates and symptomatic relief, one should take into account the mechanism of action for both these procedures. For the UroLift, the process of widening the urethral lumen is mechanical and more instantaneous, while with the Rezum procedure, there is likely to be tissue edema postoperatively requiring prolonged catheterization followed by long termprostatic volume reduction. As such, this study presents an important perspective to consider when assessing the risk/benefit profile for each patient and the importance of managing patient expectations during the process of informed consent. 20 Conclusion Both the UroLift and Rezum are effective procedures for select patients desiring treatment of LUTS associated with BPH. It is currently included in the AUA guidelines for surgical management in patients who have prostate volumes up to 80 mL. 1 Aside from demonstrating comparable efficacy to current standard therapies for treating BPH, these procedures can be performed on an outpatient basis without the use of general anesthesia, and also has no discernible effects on sexual function, making this a desirable option for many patients. Ultimately, when selecting the optimum treatment option for patients, physicians should utilize an individualized, shared-decision making approach to achieve an informed preference between the surgeon and each patient. 5 UroLift and Rezum: minimally invasive surgical therapies for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia References 1. Foster HE, Dahm P, Kohler TS et al. Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA guideline amendment 2019. J Urol 2019;202(3):592-598. 2. Pathak P, Helo S, McVary KT. What’s new in Rez ū m? Eur Urol Focus 2018;4(1):32-35. 3. McVary KT, Gittelman MC, Goldberg KA et al. Final 5-year outcomes of the multicenter randomized sham-controlled trial of a water vapor thermal therapy for treatment of moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2021;206(3):715-724. 4. McVary KT, Gange SN, GittelmanMC et al. Minimally invasive prostate convective water vapor energy ablation: Amulticenter, randomized, controlled study for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2016;195(5):1529-1538. 5. Roehrborn CG, Gange SN, Gittelman MC et al. Convective thermal therapy: durable 2-year results of randomized controlled and prospective crossover studies for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2017;197(6):1507-1516. 6. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG. Three-year outcomes of the prospective, randomized controlled Rez ū m system study: convective radiofrequency thermal therapy for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2018;111:1-9. 7. McVary KT, Rogers T, Roehrborn CG. Rez ū m water vapor thermal therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from randomized controlled study. Urology 2019;126:171-179. 8. Gupta N, Rogers T, Holland B, Helo S, Dynda D, McVary KT. Three-year treatment outcomes of water vapor thermal therapy compared to doxazosin, finasteride and combination drug therapy in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: cohort data from the MTOPS trial. J Urol 2018;200(2):405-413. 9. McVary KT, Rogers T, Mahon J, Gupta NK. Is sexual function better preserved after water vapor thermal therapy or medical therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia? J Sex Med 2018;15(12):1728-1738. 10. Chung A, Woo HH. What’s truly minimally invasive in benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery? Curr Opin Urol 2014;24(1):36-41. 11. Woo HH, Chin PT, McNicholas TAet al. Safety and feasibility of the prostatic urethral lift: a novel, minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). BJU Int 2011;108(1):82-88. 12. Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Gange SN et al. Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study. Can J Urol 2017;24(3):8802-8813. 13. Gratzke C, Barber N, Speakman MJ et al. Prostatic urethral lift vs transurethral resection of the prostate: 2-year results of the BPH6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study. BJU Int 2016;119(5):767-775.. 14. Sønksen J, Barber NJ, Speakman MJ et al. Prospective, randomized, multinational study of prostatic urethral lift versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 12-month results from the BPH6 study. Eur Urol 2015;68(4):643-652. 15. Sievert KD, Schonthaler M, Berges R et al. Minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL) efficacious in TURP candidates: a multicenter German evaluation after 2 years. World J Urol 2018; 37(7):1353-1360. 16. Roehrborn CG, Rukstalis DB. Prostatic urethral lift versus medical therapy: Examining the impact on sexual function in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol Focus 2021;S2405-4569(20)30315-1. 17. Rukstalis D, Grier D, Stroup SP et al. Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) for obstructive median lobes: 12 month results of the Medlift study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018;22(3):411-419. 18. Eure G, Gange S, Walter P et al. Real-world evidence of prostatic urethral lift confirms pivotal clinical study results: 2-year outcomes of a retrospective multicenter study. J Endourol 2019;33(7):576-584. 19. Patel NH, Uppaluri N, Iorga M et al. Device malfunctions and complications associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery: Review of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database. J Endourol 2019;33(6):448-454. 20. Tutrone RF, Schiff W. Early patient experience following treatment with the UroLift prostatic urethral lift and Rezum steam injection. Can J Urol 2020;27(3):10213-10219.