Convective Water Vapor Energy Ablation (Rezum®) Versus Prostatic Urethral Lift (Urolift®): A 2-Year Prospective Study.

Introduction: To compare the clinical outcomes and complication rates of convective water vapor energy ablation (Rezum®) and prostatic urethral lift (Urolift®). To identify predictive factors for treatment failures in both treatments. Materials & Methods: Prospective clinico-epidemiological data of patients who underwent Urolift® or Rezum® in a single institution for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was collected. The choice of intervention depended on the preference of the patients after patient-centric discussions. Results: From October 2019 to October 2022, 86 patients underwent Rezum®, and 62 patients underwent Urolift®. Rezum® involved a longer indwelling catheter duration (12.38 ± 5.548 vs 1.39 ± 3.010 days, p < 0.001) compared with Urolift®. Rezum® was associated with more complications compared with Urolift® (36 [41.9%] vs 10 [16.1%] cases, p < 0.001). Rezum® had more cases of hematuria (17 [19.8%] vs 4 [6.5%] cases [p = 0.022]) and urinary tract infections (27 [31.4%] vs 3 [4.8%] cases, p < 0.001) compared with Urolift®. There were no significant differences in Clavien-Dindo Grade 3-5 complications between the interventions. Urolift® was associated with higher reoperation rates (5 [8.1%] vs 0 [0%] cases, p = 0.010) compared Rezum®. Rezum® had higher anticholinergic usage rates compared with Urolift® post-operation (22 [25.6%] vs 8 [12.9%] cases, p = 0.024). Both interventions showed improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life score, and peak velocity flow over the 2 years with no significant difference between the two. Based on receiver operating characteristic curve, preoperation IPSS ≥16 had 95.7% sensitivity and 38.4% specificity to predict the probability of treatment failures after the interventions. Conclusions: There was no difference in clinical outcomes of patients who underwent Rezum® and Urolift®. However, patients who had undergone Rezum® faced more minor complications and more required anti-cholinergic medications. Lastly, physicians should note that patients with IPSS ≥16 would unlikely benefit from either intervention.