Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org
  • Register
  • Log in
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
Review

Contemporary surgical and procedural management of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Ayodeji E. Sotimehin, MD, Eiftu Haile, MD and Bradley C. Gill, MD, MS
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine December 2023, 90 (12) 745-753; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.90a.23026
Ayodeji E. Sotimehin
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Eiftu Haile
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bradley C. Gill
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Associate Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Find this author on Cleveland Clinic
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia have evolved from transurethral resection of the prostate and simple prostatectomy to a myriad of office-based and operating-room procedures. The contemporary approach involves matching the right procedure to the right patient, choosing on the basis of prostate characteristics, patient preference, and urologist expertise. This review details currently available and guideline-backed surgical and procedural treatments.

KEY POINTS
  • Symptoms of benign prostate hyperplasia can be related to prostate size or shape, or both. Certain surgeries and procedures are better suited for certain sizes and shapes of prostates.

  • For patients who prefer an in-office procedure or wish to avoid sexual function-related side effects such as retrograde ejaculation, the minimally invasive surgical procedures are excellent choices.

  • For patients with a larger prostate, holmium laser enucleation and simple prostatectomy are the definitive options and can provide durable results.

  • For those who wish to avoid a postoperative catheter, the prostatic urethral lift procedure or a temporarily implanted nitinol device may be a good option.

Interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia have advanced in the last 30 to 40 years and now include laser procedures, robotic surgery, and office-based minimally invasive surgeries. Historically, transurethral resection of the prostate was the main endoscopic treatment and is still widely used, but it usually causes adverse effects on sexual function, primarily retrograde ejaculation.

Many of the newer treatments remove prostatic tissue more effectively and cause fewer adverse effects than transurethral resection. For instance, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and photoselective vaporization of the prostate are approximately as clinically effective as transurethral resection but entail less bleeding risk and shorter hospitalization time, recovery time, and catheterization time. Water vapor thermal therapy and prostatic urethral lift, which are both office-based minimally invasive surgical treatments, can be done without general anesthesia and hospitalization.

This review details the operative indications, efficacy, advantages, disadvantages, and complications of various procedures to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia, including the risks of retrograde ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, and urinary incontinence. It does not cover prostate artery embolization, which is still considered experimental, and medical treatment will be covered in a future review.

TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE: THE GOLD STANDARD

During transurethral resection, an electrified wire loop is introduced through a scope to shave away the inner portion of the prostate, expanding the prostatic urethral channel and relieving obstruction. First performed in the 1940s, it is so effective that it remains the gold standard with which other procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia are compared (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Office-based procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, compared with transurethral resection

This procedure is generally done in the operating room with the patient under general or spinal anesthesia. Patients can be discharged home the day of surgery with a Foley catheter or a few days after surgery without a catheter, depending on surgeon preference and clinical situation. The catheter is typically removed on postoperative day 1 to 3.

Efficacy. Of the available treatments, transurethral resection has the most robust and rigorous long-term data. At least three-fourths of patients report their voiding symptoms as “better” or “much better” afterward and have a lower (ie, improved) International Prostate Symptom Score and American Urological Association Symptom Index.1 Objectively, maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual bladder volume, and other measures of urodynamic function also significantly improve after this surgery, and these improvements have been found to persist up to 12 years.2

Because transurethral resection removes prostatic tissue, the prostate-specific antigen level decreases afterward, and the degree to which it falls depends on both the extent (thoroughness) of resection and the histologic (glandular or stromal) makeup of the tissue removed.

Contraindications. Transurethral resection of the prostate is unsuitable for patients who cannot discontinue anticoagulation for surgery.

Complications. The main complications of transurethral resection include hemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion (occurring in 2% of cases in a meta-analysis),3 stress urinary incontinence or permanent lifelong leakage associated with increased abdominal pressure (0.6% or less), postoperative urinary retention (4.5%–6.8%), need for retreatment (0.5%), temporary postoperative dysuria and urinary urgency (0%–38%), urethral stricture (4.1%), and transurethral resection syndrome, ie, acute dilutional hyponatremia (0.8%).3–5

Transurethral resection syndrome typically presents with neurologic symptoms of confusion, nausea, vomiting, hypertension, vision changes, and bradycardia. The incidence of this complication has drastically fallen since the introduction of bipolar electrodes for the procedure, which enabled the use of iso-osmolar irrigant (normal saline). Additionally, using bipolar electrodes poses a lower risk of hemorrhage, as the technology facilitates better hemostasis.

Regarding sexual dysfunction, retrograde ejaculation is the main risk and occurs in about two-thirds to three-fourths of patients.6,7 Some physicians tell their patients to expect it with near certainty. The risk is lower if only parts of the prostate are removed and certain areas are preserved.8,9 The effects of transurethral resection on erectile function vary, as some studies show it may improve sexual function, while others have shown it can impair erections if the resection is too extensive and perforates the capsule or extends into or beyond the peripheral zone of the prostate (near the neurovascular bundles that facilitate erection).10,11

Bottom line. Overall, transurethral resection of the prostate has withstood the test of time. Like any surgical procedure, it can have excellent outcomes if done by an experienced surgeon.

MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL TREATMENTS

Minimally invasive treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia include the prostatic urethral lift procedure, water vapor thermal therapy, and temporary implantation of a nitinol device (Table 1).

Prostatic urethral lift

The prostatic urethral lift procedure (using the UroLift system) is minimally invasive and unique in that it relieves obstruction by mechanically separating and compressing prostatic tissue instead of ablating or resecting it. Through a cystoscope, stainless steel and nitinol anchors are placed in the prostate and connected by permanent sutures. The implants hold the lateral prostatic lobes apart, similar to how curtain ties keep drapes separated beside a window, creating an open channel in the prostatic urethra.

Advantages. Studies show essentially no new ejaculatory or erectile dysfunction or urinary incontinence after prostatic urethral lift.12,13 The implants typically do not encrust or form bladder stones, and they typically epithelialize within 12 months.14 The implants do not affect the prostate-specific antigen level and are benign unless a known allergy exists.12

The primary advantages of this procedure are that it can be performed in the office with local anesthesia, it preserves sexual function, and some patients do not need a catheter after the procedure.15

Efficacy. In a randomized trial comparing urethral lift vs a sham procedure, at 12 months, men who underwent the real procedure had significant improvements in American Urological Association Symptom Index (decreasing from 22 on a scale of 35 before the procedure, to 11.1 after) and maximum urinary flow rate (a gain of 4.4 mL/sec at 12 months, sustained at 4.0 mL/sec at 60 months).14 In a head-to-head comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate, the success rate was lower with the lift procedure, and the retreatment rate was higher, 11% vs 6% at 2 years.16 However, all of the patients who underwent the lift procedure maintained ejaculatory function compared with 34% in the transurethral resection group.16

Contraindications. Prostates with an enlarged median lobe or prostate volume greater than 80 cc are not well suited for this treatment, which highlights the importance of diagnostic cystourethroscopy and prostate imaging (ultrasonography or cross-sectional imaging) to determine candidacy for the procedure.

Complications are generally temporary and include dysuria (in 25%–53%), hematuria (16%–75%), pelvic pain (3.7%–19.3%), and need for postprocedural catheterization (20%–100%).17 In addition, malpositioned implants can lead to bladder irritation or growth of bladder stones. Although the growth of stones is rare, they almost always require another surgical procedure to manage.18

Bottom line. While the prostatic urethral lift procedure is an excellent option to preserve sexual function, its long-term durability is unknown, and the lack of tissue removal will likely lead those who undergo it to ultimately require some form of subsequent treatment.

Water vapor thermal therapy

Water vapor thermal therapy (with the Rezūm system) uses steam to ablate prostatic tissue. Through a specialized scope, the surgeon inserts a small needle to inject water vapor into the transitional zone (lateral and median lobes) of the prostate in up to 15 different sites for up to 9 seconds each. The steam diffuses throughout the prostatic tissue but does not cross the surgical capsule into the peripheral zone. It induces localized cell death and tissue necrosis. Over the next 4 to 6 weeks, the ablated tissue shrinks, enlarging the prostatic lumen.

Because this treatment ablates tissue, the prostate-specific antigen level decreases once inflammation from the procedure resolves. The initial injection of steam often causes prostatic edema, so an indwelling Foley catheter or intermittent catheterization is required for a few days postoperatively.

Advantages. The primary advantages of water vapor thermal therapy are that it can be performed in the office under local anesthesia, it generally preserves ejaculatory function, and it can be used in prostates with a median lobe.

Efficacy. In a randomized trial,19 water vapor thermal therapy produced significant improvements in symptoms, maximum flow, and quality of life at 12 months. This persisted to 2 years compared with sham treatment, with a 51% reduction in International Prostate Symptom Scores, 4.2-mL/sec improvement in maximum flow, and 50% improvement in quality-of-life scores. These results did not differ in patients with an enlarged median lobe. Ejaculatory bother scores were 31% better at 1 year, and de novo erectile dysfunction was not observed.19 However, in another study, 4 (2.9%) of 136 men reported ejaculatory dysfunction, which is less than with transurethral resection but more than with prostatic urethral lift.20

Contraindications. Previous radiation treatment or fibrosis of the prostate (due to a prior procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia) are relative contraindications for this procedure.

Complications of water vapor thermal therapy include dysuria, hematuria, urinary frequency and urgency, hematospermia, and urinary tract infection.19,21 These symptoms are typically mild to moderate and resolve within 3 weeks.

Bottom line. Overall, water vapor thermal therapy is an effective minimally invasive surgical treatment that eliminates hyperplastic tissue, although with a delayed time to effect. It can be easily performed in the office, it usually preserves ejaculatory function, and it achieves durable results in a variety of prostate sizes and configurations.

TEMPORARILY IMPLANTED NITINOL DEVICE

The iTind device, a temporarily implanted nitinol device, is a newer minimally invasive surgical treatment and one of a growing number of devices inserted into the prostatic urethra. When placed, the wirelike device springs open like a stent in the prostatic channel. It is left in place for only 5 to 7 days before it is removed in the office. While it is in, the struts of the device compress the urethral wall, induce tissue ischemia, and cause tissue remodeling and erosions or incisions into the prostate at the 12, 5, and 7 o’clock positions, effectively performing a transurethral incision of the prostate and improving urine flow.

Device placement can be done in the office with the patient under local anesthesia. No part of the device is left in place permanently, it does not require a postoperative catheter, and it preserves ejaculatory function.

Efficacy. Several single-arm studies show that this procedure significantly improves maximum urinary flow rate, symptoms, and quality of life at 1 to 2 years.22,23 In one study, there was no new sexual dysfunction at 2 years.24

Contraindications. This device has not been studied in prostates larger than 60 cc, and in early studies it did not work well in patients with a large median lobe.23 Many urologists believe that it is likely best suited for patients with tighter and smaller prostates that impede flow due to an elevated or constricted bladder neck and bladder-prostate junction.

Bottom line. The temporarily implanted nitinol device is a helpful addition to minimally invasive surgical treatments, offering novel advantages such as no postoperative catheterization and no permanent implants. However, long-term data on its durability and efficacy are lacking. Additionally, current indications for the procedure are limited to smaller prostates without enlargement of the median lobe. Time will tell if the induced tissue incisions and remodeling of the prostate are durable, and what role this procedure will have in managing benign prostatic hyperplasia.

SURGICAL THERAPIES

Surgical therapies other than transurethral resection include photoselective vaporization, endoscopic laser enucleation, robotic or open simple prostatectomy, and robotically controlled water jet treatment (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Operating-room-based surgeries other than transurethral resection for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Photoselective vaporization of the prostate

Photoselective vaporization of the prostate, another transurethral procedure, uses the 532-nm GreenLight laser device to open up the prostatic lumen. The light is absorbed by hemoglobin in prostatic cells, which heat up and lyse superficially while coagulating more deeply. As a result, the procedure is well suited for patients who are on therapeutic anticoagulation or are at higher risk of bleeding.

This procedure is typically done in the operating room with general or spinal anesthesia and with a small-caliber cystoscope, commonly as an outpatient or same-day surgery. A Foley catheter is generally left in place for 1 day afterward but can be kept in for longer as clinically indicated. As there is less prostate tissue afterward, the prostate-specific antigen level is expected to fall.

Efficacy. In a study in 139 men, photoselective vaporization of the prostate improved American Urological Association Symptom Index scores by 82%, maximum flow rate by 190%, and quality of life scores by 74%.25 These improvements are durable, as evidenced by a low (6.8%) retreatment rate at 5 years in another report.26 Complication rates and outcomes did not vary with anticoagulant use or prostate size over 80 cc.27

Direct comparisons with transurethral resection show that photoselective vaporization achieves equivalent outcomes with shorter hospital stays and catheterization time.28,29 However, as noted previously, like any surgery or procedure, experience with the procedure is what drives excellent outcomes.

Complications of photoselective vaporization of the prostate are similar to those of transurethral resection, but are milder in some respects because the cystoscope is smaller in diameter. These include urethral stricture (2.8%), bladder neck contracture (4.4%), epididymitis (5%–7%), urinary tract infection (1%–20%), hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion (rare), prostatic capsular perforation (0.2%–1%), and need for retreatment (1.7%–7%).30–32 Transient postoperative dysuria and urinary urgency and frequency are expected during recovery as the coagulated tissue sloughs off and is passed with urination.

Several studies show this procedure either does not affect erectile function or may mildly improve it, while ejaculatory loss should be expected with a complete procedure.33,34 However, as with transurethral resection, ejaculatory function can be maintained by removing only parts of the hyperplastic tissue as opposed to complete removal.35,36

Bottom line. In a number of practices, photoselective vaporization of the prostate has replaced transurethral resection of the prostate as the default option in light of its superior efficiency and flexibility.

Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a holmium laser

Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate is a transurethral scope-based approach. An energy source, typically a laser, is used to incise the prostate to enable the surgeon to use mechanical force and the rigid scope to “peel out” or enucleate the hyperplastic tissue (transitional zone) along the surgical capsule, separating it from the peripheral zone of the prostate. This is like removing the inside of an orange (the prostatic tissue) and leaving the rind (the surgical capsule) intact. Once the prostatic lobes are freed, they are pushed into the bladder and morcellated (cut into smaller pieces) so they can be evacuated. The energy source is also used to maintain hemostasis throughout the procedure.

The oldest and best-studied of these procedures is holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, in which a holmium end-fire laser is the energy source. Holmium laser enucleation is a great advance in the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia but has a steep learning curve, which has slowed its adoption and limited its widespread use. However, this is gradually changing as more urologists are becoming aware of its versatility.

Holmium laser enucleation can be used to treat very large prostates (> 120 cc), larger than is possible with transurethral resection or photosensitive vaporization. It is performed in the operating room with the patient under general or spinal anesthesia as a same-day or overnight-stay procedure. The Foley catheter is generally removed the day after surgery. Prostate tissue is removed, so the prostate-specific antigen level should decrease after the procedure.

Efficacy. In a series of 552 patients,37 holmium laser enucleation of the prostate improved International Prostate Symptom Scores by 75% and maximum flow by 200% at 1 year, with a mean hospital stay of 1.5 days and average catheterization time of 1.4 days. Results are durable, with a 4.2% retreatment rate at 6 years.38 In a randomized trial, compared with transurethral resection, holmium laser enucleation was associated with a shorter catheterization time (27.6 vs 43.4 hours), briefer hospitalization (53.3 vs 85.8 hours), and smaller drop in hemoglobin (1.3 vs 1.8 g/dL) despite a longer operative time (94.6 vs 73.8 min).39 In a meta-analysis,28 American Urological Association Symptom Index scores and maximum flow remained improved at 7 years with both procedures, again highlighting the effect of surgeon expertise with various procedures.

Complications of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate are similar to those of transurethral resection and photoselective vaporization and include capsular perforation, hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, transient urinary urgency and dysuria, bladder neck contracture, and urethral stricture, all in low numbers that varied in different reports.3,40–42 However, morcellator-related complications are specific to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and can result in ureteral orifice injury, bladder perforation, and rarely, severe bladder damage that necessitates cystectomy and urinary diversion.40,43,44

Additionally, as the procedure entails mechanical dissection, stress on the urinary sphincter complex can result in transient stress urinary incontinence (in 10.7% in one series, improving with time in all but 0.7%).40

Retrograde ejaculation is to be expected after holmium laser enucleation, but not erectile dysfunction.6,7

Bottom line. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate is a versatile treatment for a wide variety of prostate sizes and offers one of the most thorough removals of hyperplastic tissue available, explaining its excellent durability.

Simple prostatectomy: Robotic or open approach

Historically, for prostates larger than 80 cc, open or laparoscopic robotic simple prostatectomy was the treatment of choice. These procedures involve a surgical incision and opening the prostate either from its anterior surface or through the bladder (after opening the bladder too). The surgeon then peels out the hyperplastic tissue (transitional zone) from within the peripheral zone of the prostate, similar to what is done in holmium laser enucleation of the prostate.

Indications. Simple prostatectomy is an excellent option for patients who have massively enlarged prostates or concomitant bladder diverticula, large bladder stones, or a contraindication to the dorsal lithotomy position.

Compared with transurethral resection or photoselective vaporization, simple prostatectomy has a negligible retreatment rate, as the prostatic hyperplastic tissue is completely removed.

Advances in robotic surgery have improved visualization of the operative field, reduced blood loss, enabled smaller incisions, shortened hospitalization, and improved recovery. Depending on the approach taken (extraperitoneal, transvesical, or transperitoneal), patients spend 1 to 3 days in the hospital and have a Foley catheter for 5 to 10 days after surgery. The new single-port robotic platform has enabled some surgeons to do prostatectomies as same-day surgeries and remove the catheter 3 days later.45

Complications. The overall rates of morbidity and mortality associated with simple prostatectomy have greatly improved over the years. The main complications are retrograde ejaculation, hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion (rare in modern series), stress incontinence (rare), erectile dysfunction, bladder neck contracture, and transient urinary urgency and frequency with urge incontinence, which is seen after many procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia.46–48

Advantages. Whether performed open or robotically, simple prostatectomy is a definitive and durable treatment. Though holmium laser enucleation of the prostate can offer similar long-term outcomes without an incision, the “top-down” approach to the prostate used in simple prostatectomy does not put mechanical stress on the sphincter complex, and thus, transient stress incontinence is much less common than with holmium laser enucleation.49–51

Robotically controlled water jet treatment

Robotically controlled water jet treatment with the Aquablation system is a new technique that is being more commonly adopted. It uses a robotically controlled high-velocity water jet to clear prostatic tissue (similar to a pressure washer) within a predefined area under real-time guidance with transrectal ultrasonography. The surgeon delineates the area of treatment, preserving the bladder neck, external sphincter, and ejaculatory region of the gland, making this a partial and not a complete treatment.

Advantages. This treatment preserves ejaculation (in 80%–90%), erections, and continence. It is performed with the patient under general or spinal anesthesia, can be done as an overnight-stay or same-day surgery, and can be done in prostate glands of varying sizes. In larger glands, multiple passes or treatment runs may be necessary, but these take only a few minutes each.

Efficacy. In a prospective, single-arm trial in 21 men, robotically controlled water jet treatment improved symptoms and maximum flow.52

Complications. Bleeding after tissue removal presents a challenge and requires surgeons to then use a transurethral resection scope to coagulate bleeding vessels and clear away a residual layer of hypertrophic tissue (similar to a very limited transurethral resection of the prostate) and any stubborn areas the water jet did not eliminate. Using a transurethral resection scope after the water jet treatment has enabled it to become a same-day procedure.

Bottom line. As robotically controlled water jet treatment is a new technique, long-term data are needed to evaluate its durability.

THE RIGHT PROCEDURE FOR THE RIGHT PATIENT

We now have a range of options for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia and can choose among them based on prostate size and configuration, operative setting, expected side effects, and patient preferences and quality-of-life goals:

  • For patients who prefer an in-office procedure or wish to avoid adverse effects on sexual function such as retrograde ejaculation, the minimally invasive surgical procedures are excellent choices.

  • For patients with a larger prostate, holmium laser enucleation and simple prostatectomy are the definitive options and can provide durable results.

  • For those who wish to avoid a postoperative catheter, the prostatic urethral lift procedure or a temporarily implanted nitinol device may be a good option.

Additionally, the consideration of a patient’s specific anatomy before choosing a treatment option has led to a greater emphasis on preoperative imaging and endoscopic assessment with cystoscopy.

Bottom line. Most if not all available treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia can deliver excellent outcomes. But as with any other surgery or procedure, the experience of the urologist with each specific treatment is an important factor for quality results. In the contemporary approach to benign prostatic hyperplasia, urologists must balance their skill with the various techniques with the patient’s unique prostate anatomy, preferences, and quality-of-life goals to achieve optimal results for their patients.

DISCLOSURES

Dr. Gill has disclosed consulting, work as advisor or review panel participant, and research as a co-investigator or site-lead for Boston Scientific and Urovant Sciences. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships which, in the context of their contributions, could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest.

  • Copyright © 2023 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Bruskewitz RC,
    2. Larsen EH,
    3. Madsen PO,
    4. Dørflinger T
    . 3-year followup of urinary symptoms after transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol 1986; 136(3):613–615. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)44991-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Masumori N,
    2. Furuya R,
    3. Tanaka Y,
    4. Furuya S,
    5. Ogura H,
    6. Tsukamoto T
    . The 12-year symptomatic outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction compared to the urodynamic findings before surgery. BJU Int 2010; 105(10):1429–1433. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08978.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Ahyai SA,
    2. Gilling P,
    3. Kaplan SA, 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(3):384–397. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mayer EK,
    2. Kroeze SG,
    3. Chopra S,
    4. Bottle A,
    5. Patel A
    . Examining the ‘gold standard’: a comparative critical analysis of three consecutive decades of monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) outcomes. BJU Int 2012; 110(11):1595–1601. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11119.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Rassweiler J,
    2. Teber D,
    3. Kuntz R,
    4. Hofmann R
    . Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)—incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 2006; 50(5):969–980. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Briganti A,
    2. Naspro R,
    3. Gallina A, et al
    . Impact on sexual function of holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results of a prospective, 2-center, randomized trial. J Urol 2006; 175(5):1817–1821. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00983-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Wilson LC,
    2. Gilling PJ,
    3. Williams A, et al
    . A randomised trial comparing holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection in the treatment of prostates larger than 40 grams: results at 2 years. Eur Urol 2006; 50(3):569–573. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.04.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Manasa T,
    2. Reddy N,
    3. Puvvada S,
    4. Mylarappa P
    . Evaluating outcomes of combined bladder neck and supramontanal sparing ejaculatory preserving transurethral resection of the prostate: results from a prospective, randomised study. Cent European J Urol 2022; 75(3):292–298. doi:10.5173/ceju.2022.0004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Elshazly M,
    2. Sultan S,
    3. Shaban M,
    4. Zanaty F
    . Evaluation of a novel technique of bladder neck and supramontanal sparing ejaculatory preserving transurethral prostatectomy. World J Urol 2021; 39(11):4215–4219. doi:10.1007/s00345-021-03752-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Jaidane M,
    2. Arfa NB,
    3. Hmida W, et al
    . Effect of transurethral resection of the prostate on erectile function: a prospective comparative study. Int J Impot Res 2010; 22(2):146–151. doi:10.1038/ijir.2009.56
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Poulakis V,
    2. Ferakis N,
    3. Witzsch U,
    4. de Vries R,
    5. Becht E
    . Erectile dysfunction after transurethral prostatectomy for lower urinary tract symptoms: results from a center with over 500 patients. Asian J Androl 2006; 8(1):69–74. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7262.2006.00088.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Woo HH,
    2. Bolton DM,
    3. Laborde E, 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(2):568–575. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02568.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. McVary KT,
    2. Gange SN,
    3. Shore ND, et al
    . Treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH while preserving sexual function: randomized controlled study of prostatic urethral lift. J Sex Med 2014; 11(1):279–287. doi:10.1111/jsm.12333
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Roehrborn CG,
    2. Gange SN,
    3. Shore ND, et al
    . The prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: the LIFT study. J Urol 2013; 190(6):2161–2167. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.116
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Larcher A,
    2. Broglia L,
    3. Lughezzani G, et al
    . Urethral lift for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comprehensive review of the literature. Curr Urol Rep 2013; 14(6):620–627. doi:10.1007/s11934-013-0348-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Gratzke C,
    2. Barber N,
    3. 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):767–775. doi:10.1111/bju.13714
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Perera M,
    2. Roberts MJ,
    3. Doi SA,
    4. Bolton D
    . Prostatic urethral lift improves urinary symptoms and flow while preserving sexual function for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 67(4):704–713. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.031
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Kang J
    . Bladder stone secondary to prostatic urethral lift (PUL) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Urol Case Rep 2021; 39:101777. doi:10.1016/j.eucr.2021.101777xx
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Roehrborn CG,
    2. Gange SN,
    3. Gittelman MC, et al
    . Convective thermal therapy: durable 2-year results of randomized controlled and prospective crossover studies for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2017; 197(6):1507–1516. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.12.045
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. McVary KT,
    2. Gange SN,
    3. Gittelman MC, et al
    . Erectile and ejaculatory function preserved with convective water vapor energy treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: randomized controlled study. J Sex Med 2016; 13(6):924–933. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.03.372
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. McVary KT,
    2. Gange SN,
    3. Gittelman MC, et al
    . 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 2016; 195(5):1529–1538. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.181
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Kadner G,
    2. Valerio M,
    3. 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):3235–3244. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03140-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Chughtai B,
    2. Elterman D,
    3. Shore N, et al
    . The iTind temporarily implanted nitinol device for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. Urology 2021; 153:270–276. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.022
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Elterman D,
    2. Alshak MN,
    3. Martinez Diaz S, et al
    . An evaluation of sexual function in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in men treated with the temporarily implanted nitinol device. J Endourol 2023; 37(1):74–79. doi:10.1089/end.2022.0226
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Te AE,
    2. Malloy TR,
    3. Stein BS, et al
    . Photoselective vaporization of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: 12-month results from the first United States multicenter prospective trial. J Urol 2004; 172(4 pt 1):1404–1408. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000139541.68542.f6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Ruszat R,
    2. Seitz M,
    3. Wyler SF, et al
    . GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate: single-center experience and long-term results after 500 procedures. Eur Urol 2008; 54(4):893–901. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.04.053
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Woo H,
    2. Reich O,
    3. Bachmann A, et al
    . Outcome of GreenLight HPS 120-W laser therapy in specific patient populations: those in retention, on anticoagulants, and with large prostates (≥ 80 mL). Eur Urol Suppl 2008; 7(4):378–383. doi:10.1016/j.eursup.2008.01.016
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Cornu JN,
    2. Ahyai S,
    3. Bachmann A, et al
    . A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update. Eur Urol 2015; 67(6):1066–1096. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Thomas JA,
    2. Tubaro A,
    3. Barber N, et al
    . A multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing GreenLight-XPS laser vaporization of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: two-yr outcomes of the GOLIATH study. Eur Urol 2016; 69(1):94–102. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.054
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Thangasamy IA,
    2. Chalasani V,
    3. Bachmann A,
    4. Woo HH
    . Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate using 80-W and 120-W laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyper-plasia: a systematic review with meta-analysis from 2002 to 2012. Eur Urol 2012; 62(2):315–323. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.051
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chughtai B,
    2. Te A
    . Photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. Expert Rev Med Devices 2011; 8(5):591–595. doi:10.1586/erd.11.25
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Naspro R,
    2. Bachmann A,
    3. Gilling P, et al
    . A review of the recent evidence (2006–2008) for 532-nm photoselective laser vaporisation and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Eur Urol 2009; 55(6):1345–1357. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Paick JS,
    2. Um JM,
    3. Kim SW,
    4. Ku JH
    . Influence of high-power potassium-titanyl-phosphate photoselective vaporization of the prostate on erectile function: a short-term follow-up study. J Sex Med 2007; 4(6):1701–1707. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00574.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Kavoussi PK,
    2. Hermans MR
    . Maintenance of erectile function after photoselective vaporization of the prostate for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Sex Med 2008; 5(11):2669–2671. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00978.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Abolazm AE,
    2. El-Hefnawy AS,
    3. Laymon M,
    4. Shehab-El-Din AB,
    5. Elshal AM
    . Ejaculatory hood sparing vs standard laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate: sexual and urodynamic assessment through a double blinded, randomized trial. J Urol 2020; 203(4):792–801. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000685
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Brant A,
    2. Cho A,
    3. Posada Calderon L,
    4. Te A,
    5. Kashanian J,
    6. Chughtai B
    . Ejaculatory hood-sparing vaporization of the prostate and its impact on erectile, ejaculatory, and sexual function. Urology 2020; 144:177–181. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.072
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. Elzayat EA,
    2. Habib EI,
    3. Elhilali MM
    . Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a size-independent new “gold standard.” Urology 2005; 66(5 suppl):108–113. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Elzayat EA,
    2. Elhilali MM
    . Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): long-term results, reoperation rate, and possible impact of the learning curve. Eur Urol 2007; 52(5):1465–1471. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.074
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Kuntz RM,
    2. Ahyai S,
    3. Lehrich K,
    4. Fayad A
    . Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 patients. J Urol 2004; 172(3):1012–1016. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000136218.11998.9e
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Shah HN,
    2. Mahajan AP,
    3. Hegde SS,
    4. Bansal MB
    . Peri-operative complications of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: experience in the first 280 patients, and a review of literature. BJU Int 2007; 100(1):94–101. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06867.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kuo RL,
    2. Paterson RF,
    3. Siqueira TM Jr., et al
    . Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: morbidity in a series of 206 patients. Urology 2003; 62(1):59–63. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00124-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Kuntz RM,
    2. Lehrich K,
    3. Ahyai S
    . Does perioperative outcome of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate depend on prostate size? J Endourol 2004; 18(2):183–188. doi:10.1089/089277904322959842
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Montorsi F,
    2. Naspro R,
    3. Salonia A, et al
    . Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results from a 2-center, prospective, randomized trial in patients with obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2004; 172(5 pt 1):1926–1929. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000140501.68841.a1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Gilling PJ,
    2. Kennett K,
    3. Das AK,
    4. Thompson D,
    5. Fraundorfer MR
    . Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) combined with transurethral tissue morcellation: an update on the early clinical experience. J Endourol 1998; 12(5):457–459. doi:10.1089/end.1998.12.457
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Abou Zeinab M,
    2. Kaviani A,
    3. Ferguson E, et al
    . Single-port transvesical versus open simple prostatectomy: a perioperative comparative study [published online ahead of print, 2022 Jul 18]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022; 10.1038/s41391-022-00566-x. doi:10.1038/s41391-022-00566-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Tubaro A,
    2. Carter S,
    3. Hind A,
    4. Vicentini C,
    5. Miano L
    . A prospective study of the safety and efficacy of suprapubic transvesical prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2001; 166(1):172–176. pmid:11435849
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Varkarakis I,
    2. Kyriakakis Z,
    3. Delis A,
    4. Protogerou V,
    5. Deliveliotis C
    . Long-term results of open transvesical prostatectomy from a contemporary series of patients. Urology 2004; 64(2):306–310. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.033
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Pandolfo SD,
    2. Del Giudice F,
    3. Chung BI, et al
    . Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy vs other treatment modalities for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6,500 cases. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2023; 26(3):495–510. doi:10.1038/s41391-022-00616-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    1. Shelton TM,
    2. Drake C,
    3. Vasquez R,
    4. Rivera M
    . Comparison of contemporary surgical outcomes between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep 2023; 24(5):221–229. doi:10.1007/s11934-023-01146-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Kim HS,
    2. Shin YS
    . Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy vs holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for patients with huge benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Mens Health 2023; 41(4):753–758. doi:10.5534/wjmh.230054
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    1. Palacios DA,
    2. Kaouk J,
    3. Abou Zeinab M, et al
    . Holmium laser enu-cleation of the prostate vs transvesical single-port robotic simple prostatectomy for large prostatic glands. Urology 2023; S0090-4295(23)00659–3. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.07.020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. ↵
    1. Gilling P,
    2. Anderson P,
    3. Tan A
    . Aquablation of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 1-year results. J Urol 2017; 197(6):1565–1572. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.056
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: 90 (12)
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Vol. 90, Issue 12
1 Dec 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Contemporary surgical and procedural management of benign prostatic hyperplasia
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Contemporary surgical and procedural management of benign prostatic hyperplasia
Ayodeji E. Sotimehin, Eiftu Haile, Bradley C. Gill
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Dec 2023, 90 (12) 745-753; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.90a.23026

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Contemporary surgical and procedural management of benign prostatic hyperplasia
Ayodeji E. Sotimehin, Eiftu Haile, Bradley C. Gill
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Dec 2023, 90 (12) 745-753; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.90a.23026
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE: THE GOLD STANDARD
    • MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL TREATMENTS
    • TEMPORARILY IMPLANTED NITINOL DEVICE
    • SURGICAL THERAPIES
    • THE RIGHT PROCEDURE FOR THE RIGHT PATIENT
    • DISCLOSURES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Medical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia
  • Surgical and procedural management of benign prostatic hyperplasia
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Alpha-gal syndrome: Recognizing and managing a tick-bite–related meat allergy
  • Managing right ventricular failure in the setting of pulmonary embolism
  • Psychedelics, spirituality, and existential distress in patients at the end of life
Show more Review

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Men's Health

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Supplements
  • Article Type
  • Specialty
  • CME/MOC Articles
  • CME/MOC Calendar
  • Media Kit

Authors & Reviewers

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Authors & Reviewers
  • Subscriptions
  • About CCJM
  • Contact Us
  • Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Education
  • Consult QD

Share your suggestions!

Copyright © 2025 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved. The information provided is for educational purposes only. Use of this website is subject to the website terms of use and privacy policy. 

Powered by HighWire