Mp46-05 How Does Rezum Water Vapor Thermal Therapy Compare With the Gold Standard Transurethral Resection of Prostate for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia?–an Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology III (MP46)1 May 2024MP46-05 HOW DOES REZUM WATER VAPOR THERMAL THERAPY COMPARE WITH THE GOLD STANDARD TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF PROSTATE FOR TREATMENT OF BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA?–AN ANALYSIS OF PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES Yi Ling Chua, Ee Jean Lim, Mark Chan, Jin Yong, Tze Kiat Ng, and Edwin Jonathan Aslim Yi Ling ChuaYi Ling Chua , Ee Jean LimEe Jean Lim , Mark ChanMark Chan , Jin YongJin Yong , Tze Kiat NgTze Kiat Ng , and Edwin Jonathan AslimEdwin Jonathan Aslim View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008668.53858.38.05AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Rezum water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) utilises targeted thermal energy delivered in the form of water vapor to ablate excess prostate tissue, thereby debulking the prostate and alleviating obstructive urinary symptoms. No study has directly compared the outcomes of Rezum WVTT and transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), the gold standard surgical treatment for BPH. The aim of our study was to analyze the perioperative outcomes of Rezum WVTT versus TURP in patients with BPH. METHODS: Patients who underwent Rezum WVTT and TURP at our institution from January 2022 to June 2023 were identified using standardised surgical codes. Baseline BPH history, operative time and duration of hospital stay were extracted. Those with prostate volume more than 80 milliliters were excluded. A prospective registry was established with preoperative and follow-up uroflowmetry outcomes (maximum urinary flow rate, Qmax and post-void residual volume, PVR), as well as duration to successful voiding trial. Change in Qmax and PVR from baseline was calculated for each patient and compared between the groups. RESULTS: 260 patients who underwent Rezum WVTT (n=69) and TURP (n=191) for BPH were included. Average follow-up was 7.2 months (range, 6-81 weeks) for Rezum and 6.5 months (range, 6-84 weeks) for TURP group (p=0.352). Results are summarised in Table 1. Patients who underwent Rezum WVTT were discharged 46.1±5.3 hours earlier (95% CI: 35.8 to 56.5) and had urinary catheters for 6.6±1.0 days longer (95% CI: 4.6 to 8.6) prior to successful voiding trial than those who had TURP. Both groups showed significant improvements in Qmax at 6 months compared to preoperative (Rezum: 9.9 to 13.0 mL/s, p=0.002; TURP 7.9 to 15.8 mL/s, p<0.0001). Patients who underwent Rezum WVTT had less improvement in Qmax from baseline compared to TURP cohort (mean difference -4.8 mL/s, 95% CI: -6.8 to -2.8). PVR reduced significantly in both cohorts at 6 months compared to baseline (Rezum: 50.2 to 10.4 mL, p=0.0007; TURP 102.1 to 21.1 mL, p<0.0001). TURP cohort had greater reduction in PVR from preoperative than Rezum group (mean difference 36.0 mL, 95% CI: 6.3 to 65.7). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TURP, Rezum WVTT is a shorter procedure with reduced hospital stay, longer time to successful voiding trial and smaller improvements in Qmax and PVR achieved at 6 months follow-up. Source of Funding: Not applicable © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e754 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Yi Ling Chua More articles by this author Ee Jean Lim More articles by this author Mark Chan More articles by this author Jin Yong More articles by this author Tze Kiat Ng More articles by this author Edwin Jonathan Aslim More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...