Efficacy and Safety of the Urolift System for the Treatment of Benign Prostate liyperplasia Symptoms: Systematic Review

被引:5
作者
Sanchez-Gomez, L. M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Polo-deSantos, M. [1 ]
Gomez-Sancha, F. [4 ]
Luengo-Matos, S. [1 ]
机构
[1] ISCIII, Minist Econ & Competitividad, AETS, Madrid, Spain
[2] Hosp Univ La Princesa IP, Inst Invest Sanitaria, Madrid, Spain
[3] Red Invest Serv Salud Enfermedades Cron REDISSEC, Oslo, Norway
[4] Clin CEMTRO, Inst Cirugia Urol Avanzada, Madrid, Spain
来源
ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS | 2015年 / 39卷 / 05期
关键词
Prostate; Urethral lift; Benign prostatic; hyperplasia; Minimally invasive; surgery; Systematic review; MINIMALLY INVASIVE TREATMENT; URETHRAL LIFT; LUTS SECONDARY; SEXUAL FUNCTION; RE SAFETY; HYPERPLASIA; FEASIBILITY; BPH; PRESERVATION; OBSTRUCTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.acuro.2014.05.010
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context: Interest in having alternatives in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of the Urolift (R) system for treating the symptoms of benign prostate hyperplasia. Acquisition of evidence: Systematic review of the literature through searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, CRD, Clinical Trials and EuroScan, collecting indicators of efficacy and safety. Summary of the evidence: We included 5 case series and one clinical trial. The patients' mean age ranged from 65-74.3 years, and the mean prostate volume was 41-55 cm3. The mean number of Urolif implants was 3.7-5.5. The maximum follow-up in months was 24, 12 (3 studies) and one (2 studies). Improvements were found in lower urinary tract symptoms, as measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII), maximum urinary flow (Qmax) and postvoid residual (PVR) volume. Improvements were in found sexual dysfunction symptoms, as measured with the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) and the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire or Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MHSQ-EjD), and in quality of life (QoL). In the clinical trial, the differences were significant for International Prostate Symptom Score, BPHII, Qmax and QoL (p<.05). The adverse effects were mild. Conclusions: Although the quality of evidence is low, Urolift (R) constitutes a good therapeutic alternative for patients with benign prostate hyperplasia. The short to medium-term results show that the technique contributes to improving lower urinary tract symptoms, with no relevant side effects, does not affect sexual function and improves quality of life. Further research is required, especially on long-term results. (C) 2014 AEU. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:311 / 319
页数:9
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2013, MED LETT DRUGS THER, V55, P91
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2012, 27 EAU C PAR 2012
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2013, UROLOGE A, V55, P11
  • [4] Established Medical Therapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
    Auffenberg, Gregory B.
    Helfand, Brian T.
    McVary, Kevin T.
    [J]. UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2009, 36 (04) : 443 - +
  • [5] Barkin J, 2012, CAN J UROL, V19, P6217
  • [6] UroLift®. An operative non-ablative procedure for treatment of benign prostatic syndrome
    Berges, R.
    Sievert, K. D.
    Gratzke, C.
    Wetterauer, U.
    [J]. UROLOGE, 2013, 52 (03): : 350 - 353
  • [7] Casajuana Brunet J, 2010, GUID CLIN FISTERRA
  • [8] Bening Prostatic Hyperplasia and its Treatment: Impact on Quality of Life and Sexual Function
    Castro-Diaz, D.
    Diaz-Cuervo, H.
    Perez, M.
    [J]. ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2013, 37 (04): : 233 - 241
  • [9] Prostatic Urethral Lift: Two-year Results After Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
    Chin, Peter T.
    Bolton, Damien M.
    Jack, Greg
    Rashid, Prem
    Thavaseelan, Jeffrey
    Yu, R. James
    Roehrborn, Claus G.
    Woo, Henry H.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2012, 79 (01) : 5 - 11
  • [10] What's truly minimally invasive in benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery?
    Chung, Amanda
    Woo, Henry H.
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2014, 24 (01) : 36 - 41