Upcoming event

Prostatic urethral lift (UroLift) versus convective water vapor ablation (Rezum) for minimally invasive treatment of BPH: a comparison of improvements and durability in 3-year clinical outcomes

  • Dean Elterman 1,
  • Shaun Shepherd 1,
  • Seyed Hossein Saadat 1,
  • Mark N Alshak 2,
  • Naeem Bhojani 3,
  • Kevin C Zorn 4,
  • Enrique Rijo 5,
  • Vincent Misrai 6,
  • Katherine Lajkosz 1,
  • Bilal Chughtai 2
1 University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 2 Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA 3 Centre Hospitalier de L'Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 4 University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 5 Hospital Quiron Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 6 Clinique Pasteur, Service d'Urologie, Toulouse, France

Publication: The Canadian Journal of Urology, October 2021

Introduction 

Half of men aged > 60 years will develop benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with 40% of these men having moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). There is limited knowledge on a head-to-head comparison of prostatic urethral lift (UroLift) and convective water vapor ablation (Rezum) for the treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH. We sought to compare randomized controlled trials with 3-year clinical outcome data.

Materials and methods

After a thorough literature search, two multicenter sham-controlled double-blind randomized trials for UroLift and Rezum were identified and compared. Both studies had similar designs, baseline characteristics, reported outcomes, and low risks of bias.

Results

Rezum and UroLift resulted in significant improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 3 months (51.4% and 49.9%, respectively) and 50% reduction of IPSS Quality of Life that was durable across all time points. At 24 and 36 months, there was a statistically significant difference in IPSS between groups, favoring Rezum (-11.2 ± 7.3 versus -9.13 ± 7.62, p = 0.04, and -11.0 ± 7.1 versus -8.83 ± 7.41, p = 0.04, respectively). While Rezum had greater improvement in Qmax at 3 months (6.4 ± 7.2 versus 4.29 ± 5.16, p < 0.01), there was no difference in improvement from 12-36 months between treatments. Only UroLift experienced improvements of Men’s Sexual Health Questionnaire- Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD) function from baseline and was better than Rezum at all time points (p < 0.01). Rezum failed to significantly reduce the MSHQ-EjD bother at 3 months, while UroLift demonstrated a significant reduction of 27.56% (p < 0.01). Both systems offered equal improvements in the bother score by 12-36 months. Surgical re-treatment rates favored Rezum over Urolift (4.4% vs. 10.7%, respectively).

Conclusions 

Rezum achieved a greater improvement in symptom relief compared to UroLift. Improvement in ejaculatory dysfunction in patients treated with UroLift was greater than Rezum.

Tags: BPH