z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Real-World Evidence of Prostatic Urethral Lift Confirms Pivotal Clinical Study Results: 2-Year Outcomes of a Retrospective Multicenter Study
Author(s) -
Gregg Eure,
Steven Gange,
Peter Walter,
Ansar U. Khan,
Charles Chabert,
Thomas Mueller,
Paul Cozzi,
Manish I. Patel,
Sheldon Freedman,
Peter Chin,
Steven Ochs,
A. Hirsh,
Michael Trotter,
Douglas Grier
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of endourology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.121
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 1557-900X
pISSN - 0892-7790
DOI - 10.1089/end.2019.0167
Subject(s) - medicine , international prostate symptom score , prostate cancer , retrospective cohort study , prostate , urinary retention , confidence interval , quality of life (healthcare) , adverse effect , clinical endpoint , urology , randomized controlled trial , lower urinary tract symptoms , cancer , nursing
This study expands results from recent prostatic urethral lift (PUL) clinical trials by examining outcomes within a large unconstrained multicenter data set. Methods: Retrospective chart review and analysis of 1413 consecutive patients who received PUL in North America and Australia was performed. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-procedure for all nonurinary retention subjects (Group A) and retention subjects (Group B). Within Group A outcomes were further analyzed using paired t -tests and 95% mean confidence intervals under the following parameters: IPSS baseline ≥13, age, prostate size, site of service, prostate cancer treatment, and diabetic status. Adverse events, surgical interventions, and catheterization rates were summarized in detail. Results: Compared with the randomized controlled prosatic urethral lift (L.I.F.T.) study, subjects in this retrospective study were older and less symptomatic. After PUL, mean IPSS for Group A improved significantly from baseline by at least 8.1 points throughout follow-up. No significant differences were observed between Group A and B follow-up symptom scores. Within Group A, subjects with an IPSS baseline ≥13 behaved similarly to L.I.F.T. subjects. Age, prostate volume, site of service, prior cancer treatment, and diabetic status did not significantly affect PUL outcomes. When completed in a clinic office, PUL resulted in less side effects and catheter placement compared to other sites of service. Previous prostate cancer treatment did not elevate adverse events of high concern such as incontinence and infection. Conclusion: PUL performs well in a real-world setting in terms of symptom relief, morbidity, and patient experience for all studied patient cohorts.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom