Comparison of Durability Between Rezum Water Vapor Therapy and UroLift in Treating Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
{"title":"Comparison of Durability Between Rezum Water Vapor Therapy and UroLift in Treating Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.","authors":"Chye-Yang Lim, Chih-Cheng Lai, Ya-Wen Tsai","doi":"10.7759/cureus.80914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Rezum water vapor therapy and UroLift are among the minimally invasive surgical therapies (MISTs) gaining popularity in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This study aims to evaluate and compare the reintervention rates, a measure of durability, for Rezum water vapor therapy and UroLift as MISTs for BPH. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network, a large database of electronic health records from January 2014 to June 2024. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision codes (ICD-10) were used to build the cohorts of men aged over 18 years who underwent either Rezum water vapor therapy or UroLift. Reintervention rates and complication profiles were evaluated over a follow-up period of up to five years. Results Cumulative reintervention rates were collected for both Rezum water vapor therapy and UroLift at the 1st, 3rd, and 5th years (2.83% vs. 3.59%, 5.99% vs. 8.76%, 6.81% vs. 10.85%). The average annual increase rate was 1% for Rezum water vapor therapy compared with 1.82% for UroLift, respectively. Most complications were more prominent in the Rezum water vapor therapy group, with urinary retention accounting for 23.42%. Discussion Rezum water vapor therapy demonstrates a more durable effect with lower reintervention rates compared to UroLift, based on this large multicenter cohort study. The higher reintervention rate observed with UroLift may reflect differences in the mechanisms of action between the two procedures. Conclusions These findings elucidate the superiority of Rezum water vapor therapy in sustaining the therapeutic effect over the long term compared to UroLift. However, more complications were noted in the Rezum water vapor therapy group. Thus, clinicians should take into account the durability and complication profiles in shared decision-making when considering MISTs for BPH.</p>","PeriodicalId":93960,"journal":{"name":"Cureus","volume":"17 3","pages":"e80914"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11927518/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cureus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.80914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background Rezum water vapor therapy and UroLift are among the minimally invasive surgical therapies (MISTs) gaining popularity in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This study aims to evaluate and compare the reintervention rates, a measure of durability, for Rezum water vapor therapy and UroLift as MISTs for BPH. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network, a large database of electronic health records from January 2014 to June 2024. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision codes (ICD-10) were used to build the cohorts of men aged over 18 years who underwent either Rezum water vapor therapy or UroLift. Reintervention rates and complication profiles were evaluated over a follow-up period of up to five years. Results Cumulative reintervention rates were collected for both Rezum water vapor therapy and UroLift at the 1st, 3rd, and 5th years (2.83% vs. 3.59%, 5.99% vs. 8.76%, 6.81% vs. 10.85%). The average annual increase rate was 1% for Rezum water vapor therapy compared with 1.82% for UroLift, respectively. Most complications were more prominent in the Rezum water vapor therapy group, with urinary retention accounting for 23.42%. Discussion Rezum water vapor therapy demonstrates a more durable effect with lower reintervention rates compared to UroLift, based on this large multicenter cohort study. The higher reintervention rate observed with UroLift may reflect differences in the mechanisms of action between the two procedures. Conclusions These findings elucidate the superiority of Rezum water vapor therapy in sustaining the therapeutic effect over the long term compared to UroLift. However, more complications were noted in the Rezum water vapor therapy group. Thus, clinicians should take into account the durability and complication profiles in shared decision-making when considering MISTs for BPH.