Prostatic urethral lift vs transurethral resection of the prostate: 2-year results of the BPH6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare prostatic urethral lift (PUL) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with regard to symptoms, recovery experience, sexual function, continence, safety, quality of life, sleep and overall patient perception. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 80 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, controlled, non-blinded study conducted at 10 European centres. The BPH6 responder endpoint assessed symptom relief, quality of recovery, erectile function preservation, ejaculatory function preservation, continence preservation and safety. Additional evaluations of patient perspective, quality of life and sleep were prospectively collected, analysed and presented for the first time. RESULTS: Significant improvements in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life (QoL), BPH Impact Index (BPHII), and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax ) were observed in both arms throughout the 2-year follow up. Change in IPSS and Qmax in the TURP arm were superior to the PUL arm. Improvements in IPSS QoL and BPHII score were not statistically different between the study arms. PUL resulted in superior quality of recovery, ejaculatory function preservation and performance on the composite BPH6 index. Ejaculatory function bother scores did not change significantly in either treatment arm. TURP significantly compromised continence function at 2 weeks and 3 months. Only PUL resulted in statistically significant improvement in sleep. CONCLUSION: PUL was compared to TURP in a randomised, controlled study which further characterized both modalities so that care providers and patients can better understand the net benefit when selecting a treatment option.

Prospective, randomized, multinational study of prostatic urethral lift versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 12-month results from the BPH6 study.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is considered the gold standard for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, TURP may lead to sexual dysfunction and incontinence, and has a long recovery period. Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is a treatment option that may overcome these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To compare PUL to TURP with regard to LUTS improvement, recovery, worsening of erectile and ejaculatory function, continence and safety (BPH6). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial at 10 European centers involving 80 men with BPH LUTS. INTERVENTION: PUL or TURP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The BPH6 responder endpoint assesses symptom relief, quality of recovery, erectile function preservation, ejaculatory function preservation, continence preservation, and safety. Noninferiority was evaluated using a one-sided lower 95% confidence limit for the difference between PUL and TURP performance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Preservation of ejaculation and quality of recovery were superior with PUL (p<0.01). Significant symptom relief was achieved in both treatment arms. The study demonstrated not only noninferiority but also superiority of PUL over TURP on the BPH6 endpoint. Study limitations were the small sample size and the inability to blind participants to enrollment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of individual BPH6 elements revealed that PUL was superior to TURP with respect to quality of recovery and preservation of ejaculatory function. PUL was superior to TURP according to the novel BPH6 responder endpoint, which needs to be validated in future studies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, participants who underwent prostatic urethral lift responded significantly better than those who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate as therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia with regard to important aspects of quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01533038.

[Scintigraphy showing bladder in the scrotum by coincidence]. / Tilfældigt fund af urinblære i scrotum ved scintigrafi.

Inguinoscrotal bladder herniation (ISBH) is rare and often asymptomatic, but complications such as renal failure can occur. We present a case of a 70-year-old man with hydrocele. A bone scan showed tracer accumulation in the left scrotum, and a SPECT/CT while urinating revealed that most of the bladder was in the scrotum. Renal function was normal and a cystoscopy was done. The patient did not want surgery. Hydrocele has not been described as the primary cause of referral in patients with ISBH. It is important to diagnose ISBH because of the risk of complications and risk of underlying malignancy.

Satisfaction and complications with the Titan® one-touch release penile implant.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess complication rates and patient satisfaction with Coloplast Titan® one-touch release (OTR) inflatable penile implants inserted at one university hospital centre between November 2008 and April 2011. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Overall, 33 patients with organic erectile dysfunction underwent penile implant surgery during the study period. The Titan OTR inflatable penile implants were inserted using a penoscrotal approach. Patient and partner satisfaction was assessed with the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire. RESULTS: One implant was removed because of infection, and three patients underwent revision surgery due to problems with autoinflation, deflation, and a displaced reservoir, respectively. In all cases the problems were solved and the implants were salvaged. Further complications included one patient with haematoma and sustained scrotal pain, one patient with meatal stenosis, and four patients with infections not related to the implant. In total, 30 EDITS questionnaires were administered and 26 (87%) were completed. Twenty-two patients (85%) reported being satisfied with the implant and two (8%) were dissatisfied. Twenty-four patients (92%) would recommend a penile implant to someone with a similar medical condition. Eighteen patients (72%) believed that their partner was satisfied with the implant. Nineteen patients (76%) felt that the process of achieving an erection with the implant was natural. CONCLUSION: Although it is important to inform patients about potential problems such as infection, pain and mechanical failure, the results show that inflatable penile implants are a good treatment choice for erectile dysfunction when conservative measures have failed.