Advertisement

Der Urologe

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 254–262 | Cite as

Neue minimal-invasive Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms

  • G. MagistroEmail author
  • C. G. Stief
  • C. Gratzke
Leitthema
  • 38 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Neue minimal-invasive Techniken verfolgen das Ziel, die Qualität der operativen Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms (BPS) noch mehr auf das individuelle klinische Profil des Patienten abzustimmen. Grundsätzlich sollen funktionell gleichwertige Resultate zu Referenzverfahren erzielt werden. Gleichzeitig wird ein deutlich günstigeres Sicherheitsprofil angestrebt. Idealerweise ist die Behandlung ambulant möglich, ohne größere Anästhesie und postoperative Katheteranlage, damit eine schnelle und problemlose Rückkehr in den Alltag ermöglicht wird. Insbesondere der Erhalt der erektilen und ejakulatorischen Funktionen wird durch die neuen Verfahren besser umgesetzt als mit etablierten Standardverfahren, was für sexuell aktive Patienten ein spezielles Anliegen darstellt. Urolift® ist eine attraktive Behandlungsoption für ein sehr selektives Patientengut, das besonders interessiert ist an dem Erhalt der antegraden Ejakulation und einer schnellen und problemlosen Rekonvaleszenz. Rezũm® und AquaBeam® sind vielversprechende neue Techniken, die sich im Gegensatz zu Urolift® auch für bestimmte Konfigurationen der Prostata (Mittellappen) problemlos anwenden lassen. iTIND® steht noch am Beginn seiner klinischen Evaluation, weshalb eine erste Beurteilung noch nicht möglich ist. Inwieweit sich die intraprostatische Injektion überhaupt für die Behandlung des BPS durchsetzen wird, bleibt abzuwarten.

Schlüsselwörter

Symptome des unteren Harntrakts Intraprostatische Injektion PRX302 Fexapotid triflutate Transurethrale Resektion der Prostata 

Novel minimally invasive treatment options for male lower urinary tract symptom

Abstract

Novel minimally invasive treatment options strive for innovative approaches that are equally efficient to standard procedures with a superior safety profile. A true minimally invasive technique can be performed in an ambulatory setting under local anaesthesia and no need for postinterventional catheterization so that quick and problem-free return to everyday life is possible. Sexual dysfunction is a great concern of sexually active patients facing surgery. The novel techniques clearly demonstrate that relief of bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is possible without compromising erectile and ejaculatory function. Urolift® is an attractive treatment option for carefully selected patients without a middle lobe who have special interest in the rapid and smooth return to daily activity and the complete preservation of sexual function. Rezũm® and AquaBeam® are promising novel techniques that can be also performed in the presence of certain prostatic features like a middle lobe. iTIND® is still in its infancy of clinical evaluation and therefore, its true value still needs to be determined. According to current data the role of intraprostatic injectables for the treatment of male LUTS is still unclear.

Keywords

Lower urinary tract symptoms Intraprostatic injection PRX302 Fexapotide triflutate Transurethral resection of the prostate 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

G. Magistro, C.G. Stief und C. Gratzke geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Vuichoud C, Loughlin KR (2015) Benign prostatic hyperplasia: epidemiology, economics and evaluation. Can J Urol 22(Suppl 1):1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taub DA, Wei JT (2006) The economics of benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms in the United States. Curr Urol Rep 7(4):272–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosch JL, Bangma CH, Groeneveld FP, Bohnen AM (2008) The long-term relationship between a real change in prostate volume and a significant change in lower urinary tract symptom severity in population-based men: the Krimpen study. Eur Urol 53(4):819–825 (discussion 25–7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parsons JK, Wilt TJ, Wang PY, Barrett-Connor E, Bauer DC, Marshall LM et al (2010) Progression of lower urinary tract symptoms in older men: a community based study. J Urol 183(5):1915–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roehrborn CG (2008) BPH progression: concept and key learning from MTOPS, ALTESS, COMBAT, and ALF-ONE. BJU Int 101(Suppl 3):17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berges RR, Pientka L (1999) Management of the BPH syndrome in Germany: who is treated and how? Eur Urol 36(Suppl 3):21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boeing H, Wahrendorf J, Becker N (1999) EPIC-Germany—A source for studies into diet and risk of chronic diseases. European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Ann Nutr Metab 43(4):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riboli E, Kaaks R (1997) The EPIC Project: rationale and study design. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int J Epidemiol 26(Suppl 1):S6–S14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rohrmann S, Katzke V, Kaaks R (2016) Prevalence and progression of lower urinary tract symptoms in an aging population. Urology 95:158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.06.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    AWMF-Reg.Nr:043-035: S2e Leitlinie-Therapie des Benignen Prostatasyndroms (BPS); 2012Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gravas SBA, Descazeaud A, Drake M, Gratzke C, Madersbacher S et al (2015) EAU Guidelines on the Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Urological Association Education and Research Inc (2003) American Urological Association Guideline: management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). American Urological AssociationGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McVary KTRC, Avins AL (2010) American Urological Association Guideline: Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH). American Urological Association Education and Research, IncGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu-Yao GL, Barry MJ, Chang CH, Wasson JH, Wennberg JE (1994) Transurethral resection of the prostate among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States: time trends and outcomes. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT). Urology 44(5):692–698 (discussion 8–9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McConnell JD (1994) Benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 152(2 Pt 1):459–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saemi AM, Folsom JB, Plante MK (2008) Injection therapy for prostatic disease: a renaissance concept. Indian J Urol 24(3):329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grise P, Plante M, Palmer J, Martinez-Sagarra J, Hernandez C, Schettini M et al (2004) Evaluation of the transurethral ethanol ablation of the prostate (TEAP) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): a European multi-center evaluation. Eur Urol 46(4):496–501 (discussion-2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plante MK, Folsom JB, Zvara P (2004) Prostatic tissue ablation by injection: a literature review. J Urol 172(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andersson KE (2013) Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms: agents for intraprostatic injection. Scand J Urol 47(2):83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Magistro G, Stief CG, Gratzke C (2015) New intraprostatic injectables and prostatic urethral lift for male LUTS. Nat Rev Urol 12(8):461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elhilali MM, Pommerville P, Yocum RC, Merchant R, Roehrborn CG, Denmeade SR (2013) Prospective, randomized, double-blind, vehicle controlled, multicenter phase IIb clinical trial of the pore forming protein PRX302 for targeted treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 189(4):1421–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Magistro G, Chapple CR, Elhilali M, Gilling P, McVary KT, Roehrborn CG et al (2017) Emerging minimally invasive treatment options for male lower urinary tract symptoms. Eur Urol 72(6):986–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shore N, Tutrone R, Efros M, Bidair M, Wachs B, Kalota S et al (2018) Fexapotide triflutate: results of long-term safety and efficacy trials of a novel injectable therapy for symptomatic prostate enlargement. World J Urol 36(5):801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walsh LP (2017) State of the art: advanced techniques for prostatic urethral lift for the relief of prostate obstruction under local anesthesia. Can J Urol 24(3):8859–8864PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keehn A, Fram E, Garg M, Maria P (2017) Urolift in place of fiducial markers for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia undergoing external beam radiation therapy. Urology 104:230–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McAdams S, Funk JT, Navetta AF, El Tayeb MM, Humphreys MR (2017) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate after prostatic urethral lift surgery: feasibility and technical considerations from a multi-institutional case series. J Endourol 31(8):774–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roehrborn CG, Gange SN, Shore ND, Giddens JL, Bolton DM, Cowan BE et al (2013) The prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: the L.I.F.T. Study. J Urol 190(6):2161–2167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Gange SN, Shore ND, Giddens JL, Bolton DM et al (2017) Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study. Can J Urol 24(3):8802–8813PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sonksen J, Barber NJ, Speakman MJ, Berges R, Wetterauer U, Greene D et al (2015) Prospective, randomized, multinational study of prostatic urethral lift versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 12-month results from the BPH6 study. Eur Urol 68(4):643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gratzke C, Barber N, Speakman MJ, Berges R, Wetterauer U, Greene D et al (2016) Prostatic urethral lift vs transurethral resection of the prostate: 2‑year results of the BPH6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study. BJU Int 119(5):767–775.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13714 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R, Garrou D, Cattaneo G, Amparore D (2015) Temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND): a novel, minimally invasive treatment for relief of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): feasibility, safety and functional results at 1 year of follow-up. BJU Int 116(2):278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R, Giordano A, Checcucci E, Garrou D et al (2018) 3‑Year follow-up of temporary implantable nitinol device implantation for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. BJU Int 122(1):106–112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14141 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McVary KT, Gange SN, Gittelman MC, Goldberg KA, Patel K, Shore ND et al (2016) Minimally invasive prostate convective water vapor energy ablation: a multicenter, randomized, controlled study for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic Hyperplasia. J Urol 195(5):1529–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McVary KT, Roehrborn CG (2017) Three-year outcomes of the prospective, randomized controlled Rezum system study: convective radiofrequency thermal therapy for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms Due to benign prostatic Hyperplasia. Urology 111:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gilling P, Barber N, Bidair M, Anderson P, Sutton M, Aho T et al (2018) WATER: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of aquablation((R)) vs transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 199(5):1252–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gilling PJ, Barber N, Bidair M, Anderson P, Sutton M, Aho T et al (2018) Randomized controlled trial of aquablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia: one-year outcomes. Urology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.002. pii: S0090-4295(18)31308-6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lebdai S, Chevrot A, Doizi S, Pradere B, Delongchamps NB, Benchikh A et al (2018) Do patients have to choose between ejaculation and miction? A systematic review about ejaculation preservation technics for benign prostatic obstruction surgical treatment. World J Urol 37(2):299-308.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2368-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik der Universität MünchenLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenDeutschland
  2. 2.Klinik für UrologieUniversitätsklinikum FreiburgFreiburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations