OBJECTIVE: Prostatic urethral lift has been an effective ejaculation sparing treatment for benign prostatic hypertrophy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on male semen parameters.
METHODS: Between July 2014 and January 2022, 20 young men with urinary symptoms of BPH, unresponsive to drug treatment and motivated to preserve ejaculation for eventual paternity, underwent UroLift. Semen analysis was performed before and 6 month after surgery with evaluation of pH, volume, sperm concentration, total motility, vitality and morphology according to WHO 2011. All underwent digital rectal examination, transrectal prostate ultrasound to measure prostate volume, PSA, uroflowmetry, cystoscopy and urodynamics test if necessary. Objective and subjective urinary function was scheduled at 1, 3, 6, 12 month than yearly with UFM, IPSS, IIEF-5, and MSHQ-EjD-SF.
RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 36 month (range 12 to 63), no retroejaculation or changes in seminal parameters occurred. Mean age was 44.5 (range 36.5 to 48) years. Mean operative time was 15 (range 10 to 20) min and 2.5 (range 2 to 4) implants per patients were used. At 6 month there were no difference in terms of total sperm count, volume, pH, motility, vitality, morphology, liquefaction, leucocytes (p = 0.9; p = 0.8; p = 0.7; p = 1; p = 1; p = 1; p = 0,2; p = 0.5). At last, Q-max increased by 64.4% (p = 0.001), post-void residual volume decreased by 66.6% (p = 0.016), and IPSS decreased by 60% (p < 0.001). IIEF and MSHQ-EjD-SF were preserved (p = 0.14, p = 0.4).
CONCLUSIONS: UroLift appears safe technique to correct LUTS from BPH in young men desirous to preserve seminal analysis.

UNASSIGNED: The objective is to assess urologists\' awareness of and compliance with available minimally invasive devices (MIDs) for the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).
UNASSIGNED: An online Internet-based survey was sent to urologists through E-mail. Baseline characteristics included age, location and duration of practice, and number of prostatectomies performed in the previous 12 months. Awareness is based on the surgeons\' opinions about their advantages and drawbacks.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 308 participants responded to the survey; 87.0% were most aware of Rezūm, followed by Urolift (59.1%), Aquablation (33.1%), and combined temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND), and Zenflow (17%). In the past 12 months, 84.1% used MIDs in their practice. A total of 47.1% of respondents believe that these devices have comparable outcomes with the traditional interventions, 52.9% are unsure of their long-term benefits, and 71% feel that it is too early to judge. Forty-three percent believe that these devices are reserved only for high-risk patients, and 52% recommend that they should be available in their centers. Most respondents (90.9%) prefer Rezūm, Urolift (28.2%), and Aquablation (12.6%) because they are less invasive, less time-consuming, and have few complications. Interestingly, 59% recommend MIDs to their family members.
UNASSIGNED: Most respondents are more aware of Rezūm, Urolift, and Aquablation than iTIND and Zenflow. In addition, most respondents agree that these MIDs and traditional prostate interventions have comparable outcomes despite the former lacking long-term outcome assessment. High cost and no long-term data may influence the widespread acceptance of these MIDs.

BACKGROUND: 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.
OBJECTIVE: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

OBJECTIVE: 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.

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.
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.
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 Rezūm (5.8%) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (5.1%) made up greater proportions of BPH procedures by 2019.
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.

UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: Reprocedure rates were assessed and descriptive statistics were used.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive for benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) are one of the most frequent diseases in men and can have a significant impact on quality of life. Instrumental therapies are common, and many patients seek minimally invasive treatment options.
OBJECTIVE: Presentation and evidence-based evaluation of the minimally invasive therapy for benign prostatic syndrome.
METHODS: Summary and overview of chapters 11-13 on minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPO of the current long version of the German S2e guideline.
RESULTS: In case of absolute indication for surgery or after unsatisfactory or undesired medical therapy, minimally invasive treatments such as UroLift® (Neotract Inc., Pleasanton, CA, USA), Rezῡm™ (Boston Scientific, Malborough, MA, USA), iTIND™ (Olympus America Inc., Westborough, MA, USA), and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) can be considered. These indirect/delayed ablative therapies offer lower morbidity and the possibility of performing them under local anesthesia, but they are inferior to direct ablative/resective techniques in terms of effectiveness and sustainability.
CONCLUSIONS: The updated German S2e guideline summarizes evidence-based recommendations for new minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPO, which present alternative treatment options for selected patients.
UNASSIGNED: HINTERGRUND: Das benigne Prostatasyndrom (BPS) ist die häufigste Erkrankung des unteren Harntrakts beim Mann und kann großen Einfluss auf die Lebensqualität der Betroffenen nehmen. Instrumentelle Therapien sind häufig, und viele Patienten streben mittlerweile eine operative Therapie mit weniger Morbidität als bei den klassischen Prostataoperationen an.
UNASSIGNED: Es handelt sich um die Darstellung und evidenzbasierte Bewertung der minimalinvasiven Therapie (MIT) des BPS.
METHODS: Der Artikel liefert eine Zusammenfassung und Übersicht der Kapitel 11–13 zur MIT des BPS der aktuellen Langfassung der deutschen S2e-Leitlinie.
UNASSIGNED: Bei absoluten Operationsindikationen oder nach unzufriedenstellender oder abgelehnter medikamentöser Therapie können MIT, wie UroLift® (Neotract Inc., Pleasanton, CA, USA), Rezῡm™ (Boston Scientific, Malborough, MA, USA), iTIND™ (Olympus America Inc., Westborough, MA, USA) sowie die Prostata-Arterien-Embolisation (PAE) in Betracht gezogen werden. Diese indirekt/verzögert ablativen Therapien weisen eine geringe Morbidität auf und können auch in Lokalanästhesie durchgeführt werden. MIT sind jedoch den klassischen Prostataoperationen (mit unmittelbarer Gewebeablation) hinsichtlich Effektivität und Nachhaltigkeit unterlegen.
UNASSIGNED: Die aktualisierte deutsche S2e-Leitlinie erfasst und bewertet die neuen MIT des BPS, welche Alternativen bei einem selektionierten Patientenklientel darstellen.

UNASSIGNED: There are few reports of pelvic hematoma after prostatic urethral lift. Here, we report two cases of pelvic hematoma in Japan.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.

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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

BACKGROUND: Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) therapy is an alternative to minimally invasive and other surgeries in younger patients who want to preserve their sexual and ejaculatory functions, and in elderly male patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who cannot be anesthetized because of the risk of anesthesia. The procedure can be performed as an outpatient and without anesthesia, and complications are few and temporary. In long-term follow-up, encrustations that require retreatment are rarely seen.
METHODS: In our case, a 62-year-old prostate patient who had a PUL operation 8 years ago and had a stone on the PUL material near the bladder neck was treated. The patient\'s stone was removed by endoscopic cystolithotripsy using pneumatic fragmentation. Bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate was applied to the patient in the same session. After the patient\'s 7-year follow-up, the patient\'s complaints relapsed, and cystoscopy was performed again. In cystoscopy, stone formation adjacent to the wall was observed at the junction of the bladder neck to the left lateral wall. The stone was fragmented with a pneumatic lithotripter.
CONCLUSIONS: Placing clips too close to bladder neck in the PUL procedure may result in clip migration.