Convective Water Vapor Energy Ablation (Rezum®) Versus Prostatic Urethral Lift (Urolift®): A 2-Year Prospective Study.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1089/end.2024.0400
Yu Xi Terence Law, Wei Jing Kelven Chen, Liang Shen, Kyaw Lin, Chloe Shu Hui Ong, Qi Yang Lim, Gregory Xiang Wen Pek, Woon Chau Tsang, Yi Quan Tan, Jun Yang Chia, King Chien Joe Lee, Wei Jin Chua
{"title":"Convective Water Vapor Energy Ablation (Rezum<sup>®</sup>) Versus Prostatic Urethral Lift (Urolift<sup>®</sup>): A 2-Year Prospective Study.","authors":"Yu Xi Terence Law, Wei Jing Kelven Chen, Liang Shen, Kyaw Lin, Chloe Shu Hui Ong, Qi Yang Lim, Gregory Xiang Wen Pek, Woon Chau Tsang, Yi Quan Tan, Jun Yang Chia, King Chien Joe Lee, Wei Jin Chua","doi":"10.1089/end.2024.0400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> To compare the clinical outcomes and complication rates of convective water vapor energy ablation (Rezum<sup>®</sup>) and prostatic urethral lift (Urolift<sup>®</sup>). To identify predictive factors for treatment failures in both treatments. <b><i>Materials & Methods:</i></b> Prospective clinico-epidemiological data of patients who underwent Urolift<sup>®</sup> or Rezum<sup>®</sup> in a single institution for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was collected. The choice of intervention depended on the preference of the patients after patient-centric discussions. <b><i>Results:</i></b> From October 2019 to October 2022, 86 patients underwent Rezum<sup>®</sup>, and 62 patients underwent Urolift<sup>®</sup>. Rezum<sup>®</sup> involved a longer indwelling catheter duration (12.38 ± 5.548 <i>vs</i> 1.39 ± 3.010 days, <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared with Urolift<sup>®</sup>. Rezum<sup>®</sup> was associated with more complications compared with Urolift<sup>®</sup> (36 [41.9%] <i>vs</i> 10 [16.1%] cases, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Rezum<sup>®</sup> had more cases of hematuria (17 [19.8%] <i>vs</i> 4 [6.5%] cases [<i>p</i> = 0.022]) and urinary tract infections (27 [31.4%] <i>vs</i> 3 [4.8%] cases, <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared with Urolift<sup>®</sup>. There were no significant differences in Clavien-Dindo Grade 3-5 complications between the interventions. Urolift<sup>®</sup> was associated with higher reoperation rates (5 [8.1%] <i>vs</i> 0 [0%] cases, <i>p</i> = 0.010) compared Rezum<sup>®</sup>. Rezum<sup>®</sup> had higher anticholinergic usage rates compared with Urolift<sup>®</sup> post-operation (22 [25.6%] <i>vs</i> 8 [12.9%] cases, <i>p</i> = 0.024). Both interventions showed improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life score, and peak velocity flow over the 2 years with no significant difference between the two. Based on receiver operating characteristic curve, preoperation IPSS ≥16 had 95.7% sensitivity and 38.4% specificity to predict the probability of treatment failures after the interventions. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> There was no difference in clinical outcomes of patients who underwent Rezum<sup>®</sup> and Urolift<sup>®</sup>. However, patients who had undergone Rezum<sup>®</sup> faced more minor complications and more required anti-cholinergic medications. Lastly, physicians should note that patients with IPSS ≥16 would unlikely benefit from either intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":"1387-1394"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0400","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: To compare the clinical outcomes and complication rates of convective water vapor energy ablation (Rezum®) and prostatic urethral lift (Urolift®). To identify predictive factors for treatment failures in both treatments. Materials & Methods: Prospective clinico-epidemiological data of patients who underwent Urolift® or Rezum® in a single institution for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was collected. The choice of intervention depended on the preference of the patients after patient-centric discussions. Results: From October 2019 to October 2022, 86 patients underwent Rezum®, and 62 patients underwent Urolift®. Rezum® involved a longer indwelling catheter duration (12.38 ± 5.548 vs 1.39 ± 3.010 days, p < 0.001) compared with Urolift®. Rezum® was associated with more complications compared with Urolift® (36 [41.9%] vs 10 [16.1%] cases, p < 0.001). Rezum® had more cases of hematuria (17 [19.8%] vs 4 [6.5%] cases [p = 0.022]) and urinary tract infections (27 [31.4%] vs 3 [4.8%] cases, p < 0.001) compared with Urolift®. There were no significant differences in Clavien-Dindo Grade 3-5 complications between the interventions. Urolift® was associated with higher reoperation rates (5 [8.1%] vs 0 [0%] cases, p = 0.010) compared Rezum®. Rezum® had higher anticholinergic usage rates compared with Urolift® post-operation (22 [25.6%] vs 8 [12.9%] cases, p = 0.024). Both interventions showed improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life score, and peak velocity flow over the 2 years with no significant difference between the two. Based on receiver operating characteristic curve, preoperation IPSS ≥16 had 95.7% sensitivity and 38.4% specificity to predict the probability of treatment failures after the interventions. Conclusions: There was no difference in clinical outcomes of patients who underwent Rezum® and Urolift®. However, patients who had undergone Rezum® faced more minor complications and more required anti-cholinergic medications. Lastly, physicians should note that patients with IPSS ≥16 would unlikely benefit from either intervention.

对流水蒸气能量消融术 (Rezum®) 与前列腺尿道提升术 (Urolift®);一项为期两年的前瞻性研究。
引言 比较对流水蒸气能量消融术(Rezum®)和前列腺尿道提升术(Urolift®)的临床疗效和并发症发生率。确定两种治疗失败的预测因素。材料与方法 收集了在一家医疗机构接受 Urolift® 或 Rezum® 治疗的良性前列腺增生症(BPH)患者的前瞻性临床流行病学数据。在以患者为中心进行讨论后,根据患者的偏好选择干预措施。结果 从2019年10月到2022年10月,86名患者接受了Rezum®治疗,62名患者接受了Urolift®治疗。Rezum® 的留置导管时间更长(12.38±5.548 天对 1.39±3.010 天,p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信