Current Urology Reports

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 620–627

Urethral Lift for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

  • Alessandro Larcher
  • Luigi Broglia
  • Giovanni Lughezzani
  • Francesco Mistretta
  • Alberto Abrate
  • Giuliana Lista
  • Nicola Fossati
  • Mattia Sangalli
  • Dana Kuefner
  • Andrea Cestari
  • Nicolomaria Buffi
  • Massimo Lazzeri
  • Giorgio Guazzoni
  • Francesco Montorsi
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (K McVary and S Kaplan, Section Editors)

Abstract

Current treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) include watchful waiting, medical therapy, and interventional procedures. The post-surgical complication profile and the early discontinuation of medical therapy are significant drawbacks of the established approach and stimulate the search for less-invasive approaches. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive review all available literature on prostatic urethral lift (PUL), presenting an overview of safety, indications, surgical technique and results of the procedure, and to evaluate the potential role it could play in the treatment of BPH. A comprehensive search was conduct on PubMed and Scopus database to identify original articles in English dealing with PUL without any limit to publication date. Keywords used were prostatic urethral lift, urethral lifting, Urolift, benign prostatic hyperplasia and minimally invasive therapy. The PUL seems to offer a better IPSS improvement when compared to medical therapy, but the result is inferior when compared to surgical therapy. Published studies report an absence of degradation of erectile or ejaculatory function after treatment, which appears a noteworthy benefit of PUL. Additional advantages of the PUL are a better complication profile in comparison to other surgical therapies and the use of a local anesthesia, sometimes without postoperative catheterization. The PUL, a novel, minimally invasive treatment option for men affected by BPH, presents a promising potential although it is clear that PUL is not a substitute for traditional ablative surgical approach, as this procedure requires a scrupulous selection of the patient.

Keywords

Urethral lift Benign prostatic hyperplasia Lower urinary tract symptoms Transurethral resection of the prostate Prostatic urethral lift 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Nordling J. Efficacy and safety of two doses (10 and 15 mg) of alfuzosin or tamsulosin (0.4 mg) once daily for treating symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. 2005;95:1006–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oelke M, Bachmann M, Descazeaud A, Emberton M, Gravas S, Michel MC, N’Dow J, Nordling J, de la Rosette JJ. Guidelines on Management of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO). European Association of Urology Guidelines–2012; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complicantions of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP)-INcidence, Management, and Prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50:969–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    • Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, Kuntz RM, Madersbacher S, Montorsi F, et al. Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol. 2010;58:384–97. An exhaustive review that offers a global evaluation of the surgical therapies for BPH. TURP, bipolar TURP, transurethral vaporisation of the prostate, Holep, and potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vaporisation of the prostate are evaluated in terms of results and complications.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fabian KM. The intra-prostatic “partial catheter” (urological spiral) (author’s transl). Urologe A. 1980;19:236–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guazzoni G, Montorsi F, Coulange C, Milroy E, Pansadoro V, Rubben H, et al. A modified prostatic UroLume Wallstent for healthy patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a European Multicenter Study. Urology. 1994;44:364–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Verhamme KM, Dieleman JP, Bleumink GS, Bosch JL, Stricker BH, Sturkenboom MC. Treatment strategies, patterns of drug use and treatment discontinuation in men with LUTS suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: the Triumph project. Eur Urol. 2003;44:539–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. W64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woo HH, Chin PT, McNicholas TA, Gill HS, Plante MK, Bruskewitz RC, et al. Safety and feasibility of the prostatic urethral lift: a novel, minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). BJU Int. 2011;108:82–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    • Barkin J, Giddens J, Incze P, Casey R, Richardson S, Gange S. UroLift system for relief of prostate obstruction under local anesthesia. Can J Urol. 2012;19:6217–22. Surgery-in-motion like paper that provide details about technical aspects of the procedure. Useful for who wants to start with the device.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Woo HH, Bolton DM, Laborde E, Jack G, Chin PT, Rashid P, et al. Preservation of sexual function with the prostatic urethral lift: a novel treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Sex Med. 2012;9:568–75. Original article reporting the main PUL patient series. The paper emphasizes the results of the procedure in terms of sexual function.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    • Chin PT, Bolton DM, Jack G, Rashid P, Thavaseelan J, Yu RJ, et al. Prostatic urethral lift: two-year results after treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 2012;79:5–11. Original article reporting the main PUL patient series. The paper showes the results of the procedure at the longest follow up available.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andersson KE. Storage and voiding symptoms: pathophysiologic aspects. Urology. 2003;62:3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tubaro A, De Nunzio C. Words of wisdom. Re: Safety and feasibility of the prostatic urethral lift: a novel, minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Eur Urol. 2011;60:1120–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Djavan B, Chapple C, Milani S, Marberger M. State of the art on the efficacy and tolerability of alpha1-adrenoceptor antagonists in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 2004;64:1081–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lepor H, Williford WO, Barry MJ, Brawer MK, Dixon CM, Gormley G, et al. The efficacy of terazosin, finasteride, or both in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:533–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elzayat EA, Habib EI, Elhilali MM. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a size-independent new “gold standard”. Urology. 2005;66:108–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gacci M, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Kaplan SA, Maggi M, et al. Critical analysis of the relationship between sexual dysfunctions and lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol. 2011;60:809–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roehrborn CG, Siami P, Barkin J, Damiao R, Major-Walker K, Nandy I, et al. The effects of combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin on clinical outcomes in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from the CombAT study. Eur Urol. 2010;57:123–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Madersbacher S, Marberger M. Is transurethral resection of the prostate still justified? BJU Int. 1999;83:227–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Delongchamps NB, Zerbib M. Re: Prostatic urethral lift: two-year results after treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol. 2012;62:350–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaplan SA. Re: Safety and feasibility of the prostatic urethral lift: a novel, minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). J Urol. 2012;187:1360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    BPH-6: Comparison of the UroLift System to Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia–Idnetifier NCT01533038. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01533038.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Larcher
    • 1
  • Luigi Broglia
    • 1
  • Giovanni Lughezzani
    • 1
  • Francesco Mistretta
    • 1
  • Alberto Abrate
    • 1
  • Giuliana Lista
    • 1
  • Nicola Fossati
    • 1
  • Mattia Sangalli
    • 1
  • Dana Kuefner
    • 1
  • Andrea Cestari
    • 1
  • Nicolomaria Buffi
    • 1
  • Massimo Lazzeri
    • 1
  • Giorgio Guazzoni
    • 1
  • Francesco Montorsi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Urology, San Raffaele Turro HospitalVita Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Urology, San Raffaele HospitalVita Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations