Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do Minimally Invasive Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Treatments Preserve Sexual Function? A Contemporary Review of the Literature

  • Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (J Silberstein and C Benson, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The aim of this study is to compare the sexual function outcomes related to minimally invasive surgical therapies (MISTs) (UroLift®, Rezum™, Aquablation®, prostate artery embolization, and iTind®) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Recent Findings

Clinical trials and retrospective data evaluating MISTs for BPH have demonstrated improved or stable sexual function outcomes when compared to sham control or transurethral resection of the prostate. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and following treatments using patient-reported outcome measures. Rezum and Aquablation demonstrated preservation of overall ejaculatory function and erectile function at 36-month follow-up. Similar outcomes occurred with UroLift after a 60-month follow-up. Erectile function was preserved following prostate artery embolization and iTIND up to 12 months.

Summary

MIST for the management of BPH has been demonstrated to be effective in improving urinary function and appears to minimize potential collateral damage on sexual function following treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McVary KT. BPH: epidemiology and comorbidities. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(5 Suppl):S122–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Skinder D, Zacharia I, Studin J, Covino J. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a clinical review. Jaapa. 2016;29(8):19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Elterman DS, Zorn KC, Chughtai B, Bhojani N. Is it time to offer true minimally invasive treatments (TMIST) for BPH?–a review of office-based therapies and introduction of a new technology category. Can J Urol. 2021;28(2):10581.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Malaeb BS, Yu X, McBean AM, Elliott SP. National trends in surgical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the United States (2000–2008). Urology. 2012;79(5):1111–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carbone DJ, Hodges S. Medical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: sexual dysfunction and impact on quality of life. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15(4):299–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Leong JY, Patel AS, Ramasamy R. Minimizing sexual dysfunction in BPH surgery. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2019;11(3):190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Djavan B, Marberger M. A meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol. 1999;36(1):1–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Gange SN, et al. Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study. Can J Urol. 2017;24(3):8802–8813.

  9. Rashid P, Chin P, Bolton D, et al. Prospective, randomised study of prostatic urethral lift (PUL) with three year results. BJU Int. 2015;115:10–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gratzke C, Barber N, Speakman MJ, et al. Prostatic urethral lift vs transurethral resection of the prostate: 2-year results of the BPH6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study. BJU Int. 2017;119(5):767–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eure G, Gange S, Walter P, et al. Real-world evidence of prostatic urethral lift confirms pivotal clinical study results: 2-year outcomes of a retrospective multicenter study. J Endourol. 2019;33(7):576–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim JH, Lee KS, Kim TH. Evaluation of clinical outcomes of prostatic urethral lift for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an Asian population study. World J Mens Health. 2020;38(3):338–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bozkurt A, Karabakan M, Keskin E, Hirik E, Balci MB, Nuhoglu B. Prostatic urethral lift: a new minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Int. 2016;96(2):202–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mynderse LA, Hanson D, Robb RA, et al. Rezūm system water vapor treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia: validation of convective thermal energy transfer and characterization with magnetic resonance imaging and 3-dimensional renderings. Urology. 2015;86(1):122–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McVary KT, Rogers T, Roehrborn CG. Rezūm water vapor thermal therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from randomized controlled study. Urology. 2019;126:171–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McVary KT, Rogers T, Mahon J, Gupta NK. Is sexual function better preserved after water vapor thermal therapy or medical therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia? J Sex Med. 2018;15(12):1728–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garden EB, Shukla D, Ravivarapu KT, et al. Rezum therapy for patients with large prostates (≥ 80 g): initial clinical experience and postoperative outcomes. World J Urol. 2021; p. 1–8.

  18. Darson MF, Alexander EE, Schiffman ZJ, et al. Procedural techniques and multicenter postmarket experience using minimally invasive convective radiofrequency thermal therapy with Rezūm system for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Res Rep Urol. 2017;9:159–68.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Gilling P, Barber N, Bidair M, et al. Three-year outcomes after Aquablation therapy compared to TURP: results from a blinded randomized trial. Can J Urol. 2020;27(1):10072–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kasraeian A, Alcantara M, Alcantara KM, Altamirando JA, Kasraeian A. Aquablation for BPH. Can J Urol. 2020;27(5):10378–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ray AF, Powell J, Speakman MJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity-matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK-ROPE study). BJU Int. 2018;122(2):270–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Abt D, Hechelhammer L, Müllhaupt G, et al. Comparison of prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial. Bmj, 2018. 361:k2338.

  23. Carnevale FC, Iscaife A, Yoshinaga EM, Moreira AM, Antunes AA, Srougi M. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) versus original and PErFecTED prostate artery embolization (PAE) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): preliminary results of a single center, prospective, urodynamic-controlled analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39(1):44–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Marzano L, Thiounn N, Pereira H, et al. Prostatic artery embolization allows to maintain full sexual activity in patients suffering from bothersome lower urinary tracts symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020;43:1202–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Al Rawashdah SF, Pastore AL, Velotti G, et al. Sexual and functional outcomes of prostate artery embolisation: a prospective long‐term follow‐up, large cohort study. Int J Clin Pract. 2020;74(3):e13454.

  26. Kadner G, Valerio M, Giannakis I, et al. Second generation of temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 2 year results of the MT-02-study. World J Urol. 2020;38(12):3235–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chughtai, B, Elterman D, Shore N, et al. The iTind temporarily implanted nitinol device for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Urology. 2020.

  28. Amparore D, Fiori C, Valerio M, et al. 3-Year results following treatment with the second generation of the temporary implantable nitinol device in men with LUTS secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24(2):349–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Amparore D, et al. Second-generation of temporary implantable nitinol device for the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: results of a prospective, multicentre study at 1 year of follow-up. BJU Int. 2019;123(6):1061–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. De Nunzio C, Cantiello F, Fiori C, et al. Urinary and sexual function after treatment with temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 6-month interim results of the MT-06-study. World J Urol. 2020.

  31. Gilling P, Reuther R, Kahokehr A, Fraundorfer M. Aquablation - image-guided robot-assisted waterjet ablation of the prostate: initial clinical experience. BJU Int. 2016;117(6):923–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Aljuri N, Gilling P, Roehrborn C. How I do it: balloon tamponade of prostatic fossa following Aquablation. Can J Urol. 2017;24(4):8937–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Foster HE, Dahm P, Kohler TS, et al. Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA guideline amendment 2019. J Urol. 2019;202(3):592–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Ave, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA

    Joseph Kim, Michael Polchert, Benjamin Chacko & Jacob Tannenbaum

  2. The University of Chicago Medical Center, Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, USA

    Omer Raheem

Authors
  1. Joseph Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Polchert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin Chacko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacob Tannenbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Omer Raheem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omer Raheem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All authors have no disclosures to make.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J., Polchert, M., Chacko, B. et al. Do Minimally Invasive Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Treatments Preserve Sexual Function? A Contemporary Review of the Literature. Curr Urol Rep 22, 56 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-021-01071-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-021-01071-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation