@Article{,
AUTHOR = {Dean Elterman, Shaun Shepherd, Seyed Hossein Saadat, Mark N. Alshak, Naeem Bhojani, Kevin C. Zorn, Enrique Rijo, Vincent Misrai, Katherine Lajkosz, Bilal Chughtai},
TITLE = {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},
JOURNAL = {Canadian Journal of Urology},
VOLUME = {28},
YEAR = {2021},
NUMBER = {5},
PAGES = {10824--10833},
URL = {http://www.techscience.com/CJU/v28n5/60267},
ISSN = {1488-5581},
ABSTRACT = {<b>Introduction:</b> 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.<br/>
<b>Materials and methods:</b> 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.<br/>
<b>Results:</b> 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).<br/>
<b>Conclusions:</b> Rezum achieved a greater improvement in symptom relief compared to UroLift. Improvement in ejaculatory dysfunction in patients treated with UroLift was greater than Rezum.},
DOI = {}
}