Open Access

ARTICLE

Prospective multi-center study elucidating patient experience after prostatic urethral lift

Neal Shore¹, Sheldon Freedman², Steven Gange³, William Moseley⁴, Sean Heron⁵, Ron Tutrone⁶, Thomas Brown⁷, Jack Barkin⁸

1 Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
2 Sheldon J. Freedman, M.D., Ltd, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
3 Jean Brown Research, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
4 Premier Urology/San Diego Uro-Research, San Diego, California, USA
5 Pinellas Urology, Inc, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
6 Chesapeake Urology Research Associates, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA
7 Atlantic Urological Associates, Towson, Maryland, USA
8 Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Address correspondence to Dr. Jack Barkin, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, 404-960 Lawrence Avenue West, Toronto, ON M6A 3B5 Canada

Canadian Journal of Urology 2014, 21(1), 7094-7101.

Abstract

Introduction: The prostatic urethral Lift (PUL) procedure offers a novel treatment for men with lower urinary tract obstructive symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Most patients who seek LUTS/BPH treatment choose the intervention that offers the expectations of a significant improvement in quality of life and the least chance of short or long term morbidity. We report the results of a prospective, non-randomized study designed to further characterize the perioperative subject experience with the PUL procedure.
Materials and methods: The PUL procedure employs permanent implants to mechanically pull the prostatic lateral lobes apart. Subjects were ≥50 years old with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥12, peak flow rate ≤12 mL, and prostate volume between 30 cc and 80 cc. Subject experience through 1 month was characterized by validated instruments designed to assess quality of recovery, work productivity, activity impairment, symptom response, quality of life, flow rate and sexual function.
Results: Fifty-one subjects were treated without any serious adverse events. No case was abandoned or postponed due to subject discomfort. By 1 month, 86% of subjects achieved high quality recovery as measured by a score of ≥80 on the Quality of Recovery Visual Analog Scale. Ninety percent of subjects reported improvement in their condition and 75% of subjects would recommend the procedure to a friend. Symptom response, flow rate improvement, and sexual function preservation were comparable to published studies.
Conclusions: The PUL procedure was tolerated under local anesthesia, rarely required postoperative catheterization, and offered rapid LUTS relief with minimal associated morbidity. The study further allows urologists to advise patients regarding post-procedural expectations and side effects, inclusive of symptomatic benefit.

---

Keywords

---