World journal of urology · 2026
Real-world comparison of Rezūm® water vapor therapy and transurethral resection of the prostate using a pragmatic composite definition of procedural success.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pina-Vaz Teresa, Costa Silva Alberto, Henriques Margarida, Antunes Hugo, Dias Pedro, Martins-Silva Carlos, Silva João Alturas, Morgado Afonso
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare Rezūm water vapor therapy and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) using a newly proposed composite definition of procedural success that integrates symptom improvement, safety, and preservation of sexual function.
METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort included 192 matched patients (96 Rezūm, 96 TURP) treated between 2020 and 2024. Groups were matched for age, prostate volume, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Qmax and post-void residual urine. Procedural success required simultaneous achievement of all the following: ≥50% IPSS reduction, ≥ 50% Qmax improvement, ≥ 50% (or ≥ 1-point) QoL improvement, absence of intraoperative or Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, preservation of erectile and ejaculatory function, and no retreatment.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Rezūm was mostly performed as an outpatient procedure (89.6%), while all TURP patients required admission (p < 0.001). Catheterization duration was longer after Rezūm (5 vs. 1.5 days, p < 0.001). Both techniques significantly improved IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and PSA with no difference in median changes. Ejaculatory preservation favored Rezūm (87.5% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.001), whereas retreatment was more frequent (46.9% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.001). Overall procedural success was comparable (53.1% vs. 47.9%, p = 0.47). Median follow-up was 46 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Rezūm and TURP achieved similar overall procedural success. Rezūm offered superior sexual function preservation and outpatient feasibility, whereas TURP provided greater long-term durability, supporting tailored treatment selection.
METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort included 192 matched patients (96 Rezūm, 96 TURP) treated between 2020 and 2024. Groups were matched for age, prostate volume, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Qmax and post-void residual urine. Procedural success required simultaneous achievement of all the following: ≥50% IPSS reduction, ≥ 50% Qmax improvement, ≥ 50% (or ≥ 1-point) QoL improvement, absence of intraoperative or Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications, preservation of erectile and ejaculatory function, and no retreatment.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Rezūm was mostly performed as an outpatient procedure (89.6%), while all TURP patients required admission (p < 0.001). Catheterization duration was longer after Rezūm (5 vs. 1.5 days, p < 0.001). Both techniques significantly improved IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and PSA with no difference in median changes. Ejaculatory preservation favored Rezūm (87.5% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.001), whereas retreatment was more frequent (46.9% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.001). Overall procedural success was comparable (53.1% vs. 47.9%, p = 0.47). Median follow-up was 46 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Rezūm and TURP achieved similar overall procedural success. Rezūm offered superior sexual function preservation and outpatient feasibility, whereas TURP provided greater long-term durability, supporting tailored treatment selection.