ABSTRACT
Introduction & Objectives: Minimally invasive transurethral therapies for benign prostatic hypertension are becoming increasingly common in Europe and America. They may be performed under local anaesthetic and provide a good alternative to invasive procedures in a COVID era. REZUM, a minimally invasive transurethral water-vapor therapy, has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for BPH, especially where preserved sexual function is a priority. Although short-term clinical outcomes are promising, long-term data from robust studies is lacking. In Australia, there are few providers of REZUM, which utilises steam injections to reduce prostatic tissue. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of REZUM in an Australian cohort. Methods: A clinical audit was conducted of 50 patients who underwent REZUM to treat symptoms of BPH over a 12-month period. Procedures were performed under general anaesthetic. Demographics, comorbidities, sexual function, prostate volume, PSA, voiding flow rate, post-void residual volume and International Prostate Symptom Score were extracted from medical records, in addition to patient's reasons for seeking minimally invasive treatment. Corresponding post-operative data was collected. Descriptive statistics of the cohort were obtained using Stata 16.0. Paired t-test was used to identify if there was a significant difference between IPSS scores pre- and postprocedure Results: Patients accessing treatment ranged from 48 to 84 years (mean 64.6). Median prostate volume was 55mL (inter-quartile range 45-78mls) and mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 20.3. 28% of the cohort cited concern for ejaculatory function, either from medication side effects or TURP, as their primary reason for seeking minimally invasive treatment. A further 25% of the cohort was additionally concerned about other side effects from medications and/or TURP or had experienced medication failure. The mean follow up period was 6 months (range 6-weeks-26 months). 69% of men were satisfied with their symptom improvement at the time of review, with the expectation of ongoing improvement in men who had attended a 6-week post-operative review only. Postprocedure mean IPSS was 7.9 (range 2-33). Mean reduction in IPSS score post-procedure was 12.7 points (p<0.001). 3 men experienced complications (retention, infection, bulbar stricture). Conclusions: REZUM provides a safe alternative to traditional invasive prostatic treatments. It may be performed under local anaesthetic, providing an effective alternative in a COVID era. Men concerned about medications, more invasive treatments and ejaculatory dysfunction are increasingly seeking relief from this minimally invasive option and experiencing good outcomes including significant symptom improvement sustained over medium-term follow up.