Premium
Prostatic urethral lift vs transurethral resection of the prostate: 2‐year results of the BPH 6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study
Author(s) -
Gratzke Christian,
Barber Neil,
Speakman Mark J.,
Berges Richard,
Wetterauer Ulrich,
Greene Damien,
Sievert KarlDietrich,
Chapple Christopher R.,
Patterson Jacob M.,
Fahrenkrug Lasse,
Schoenthaler Martin,
Sonksen Jens
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/bju.13714
Subject(s) - medicine , international prostate symptom score , lower urinary tract symptoms , quality of life (healthcare) , urology , transurethral resection of the prostate , prostate , sexual function , prospective cohort study , clinical endpoint , randomized controlled trial , surgery , nursing , cancer
Objectives To compare prostatic urethral lift ( PUL ) with transurethral resection of the prostate ( TURP ) with regard to symptoms, recovery experience, sexual function, continence, safety, quality of life, sleep and overall patient perception. Patients and Methods A total of 80 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia ( BPH ) were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, controlled, non‐blinded study conducted at 10 European centres. The BPH 6 responder endpoint assessed symptom relief, quality of recovery, erectile function preservation, ejaculatory function preservation, continence preservation and safety. Additional evaluations of patient perspective, quality of life and sleep were prospectively collected, analysed and presented for the first time. Results Significant improvements in International Prostate Symptom Score ( IPSS ), IPSS quality of life (QoL), BPH Impact Index ( BPHII ), and maximum urinary flow rate ( Q max ) were observed in both arms throughout the 2‐year follow up. Change in IPSS and Q max in the TURP arm were superior to the PUL arm. Improvements in IPSS QoL and BPHII score were not statistically different between the study arms. PUL resulted in superior quality of recovery, ejaculatory function preservation and performance on the composite BPH 6 index. Ejaculatory function bother scores did not change significantly in either treatment arm. TURP significantly compromised continence function at 2 weeks and 3 months. Only PUL resulted in statistically significant improvement in sleep. Conclusion PUL was compared to TURP in a randomised, controlled study which further characterized both modalities so that care providers and patients can better understand the net benefit when selecting a treatment option.