Do patients have to choose between ejaculation and miction? A systematic review about ejaculation preservation technics for benign prostatic obstruction surgical treatment.
Ablation Techniques
Ejaculation
Embolization, Therapeutic
Endoscopy
Humans
Laser Therapy
Lasers, Solid-State
/ therapeutic use
Male
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Prostate
/ blood supply
Prostatic Hyperplasia
/ complications
Prosthesis Implantation
Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological
/ etiology
Steam
Transurethral Resection of Prostate
/ adverse effects
Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction
/ etiology
Urination Disorders
/ etiology
Benign prostatic hyperplasia
Ejaculation preservation
Ejaculatory dysfunction
Endoscopic surgery
Lower urinary tract symptoms
Retrograde ejaculation
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
25
04
2018
accepted:
04
06
2018
pubmed:
4
7
2018
medline:
29
5
2019
entrez:
4
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ejaculatory dysfunction is the most common side effect related to surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Nowadays, modified surgical techniques and non-ablative techniques have emerged with the aim of preserving antegrade ejaculation. Our objective was to conduce a systematic review of the literature regarding efficacy on ejaculatory preservation of modified endoscopic surgical techniques, and mini-invasive non-ablatives techniques for BPO management. A systematic review of the literature was carried out on the PubMed database using the following MESH terms: "Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery" and "Ejaculation", in combination with the following keywords: "ejaculation preservation", "photoselective vaporization of the prostate", "photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate", "holmium laser enucleation of the prostate", "thulium laser", "prostatic artery embolization", "urolift", "rezum", and "aquablation". The ejaculation preservation rate of modified-TURP ranged from 66 to 91%. The ejaculation preservation rate of modified-prostate photo-vaporization ranged from 87 to 96%. The only high level of evidence studies available compared prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and aquablation versus regular TURP in prospective randomized-controlled trials. The ejaculation preservation rate of either PUL or aquablation compared to regular TURP was 100 and 90 versus 34%, respectively. Non-ablative therapies and modified endoscopic surgical techniques seemed to be reasonable options for patients eager to preserve their ejaculatory functions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29967947
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2368-6
pii: 10.1007/s00345-018-2368-6
doi:
Substances chimiques
Steam
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
299-308Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
BJU Int. 1999 Feb;83(3):227-37
pubmed: 10233485
J Urol. 2001 May;165(5):1526-32
pubmed: 11342911
BMJ. 2002 May 4;324(7345):1059-61
pubmed: 11991908
Eur Urol. 2003 Dec;44(6):637-49
pubmed: 14644114
J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):1012-6
pubmed: 15311026
Eur Urol. 2006 Jun;49(6):970-8; discussion 978
pubmed: 16481092
Urology. 2007 May;69(5):805-9
pubmed: 17482908
Eur Urol. 2007 Nov;52(5):1456-63
pubmed: 17499427
Eur Urol. 2008 Feb;53(2):382-89
pubmed: 17566639
Urol Int. 2008;80(1):26-30
pubmed: 18204229
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2009;12(3):277-80
pubmed: 19322136
World J Urol. 2010 Feb;28(1):23-32
pubmed: 20033744
BJU Int. 2010 Nov;106(9):1339-43
pubmed: 20477825
J Sex Med. 2010 Aug;7(8):2825-30
pubmed: 20487234
Urol Int. 2012;88(2):165-9
pubmed: 22237486
Prog Urol. 2012 Dec;22(16):977-88
pubmed: 23178093
Eur Urol. 2013 Jul;64(1):118-40
pubmed: 23541338
J Endourol. 2014 Jan;28(1):84-9
pubmed: 23952037
Radiology. 2014 Mar;270(3):920-8
pubmed: 24475799
Rev Med Liege. 2013 Dec;68(12):644-9
pubmed: 24564030
Int J Impot Res. 2015 Jan-Feb;27(1):20-4
pubmed: 25007827
BJU Int. 2015 Feb;115(2):186-7
pubmed: 25046575
J Endourol. 2015 Mar;29(3):332-9
pubmed: 25133981
Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1099-1109
pubmed: 25613154
Urol Int. 1985;40(1):3-4
pubmed: 2579496
Urology. 2015 Jul;86(1):122-7
pubmed: 25987496
Can J Urol. 2015 Jun;22(3):7772-82
pubmed: 26068624
Int J Urol. 2016 Jan;23(1):22-35
pubmed: 26177667
Urology. 2015 Nov;86(5):1042-7
pubmed: 26216644
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):94-102
pubmed: 26283011
BJU Int. 2016 Jun;117(6):923-9
pubmed: 26477826
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016 Jan;39(1):44-52
pubmed: 26506952
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016 Mar;39(3):367-75
pubmed: 26702619
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016 May;27(5):700-8
pubmed: 27019980
Urology. 2017 Jan;99:142-147
pubmed: 27725232
BJU Int. 2017 May;119(5):767-775
pubmed: 27862831
J Urol. 2017 Jun;197(6):1507-1516
pubmed: 27993667
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017 May;40(5):655-663
pubmed: 28032133
J Urol. 2017 Jun;197(6):1565-1572
pubmed: 28111300
Can J Urol. 2017 Jun;24(3):8802-8813
pubmed: 28646935
Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Oct;49(10):1741-1749
pubmed: 28780626
Urology. 2018 Jan;111:1-9
pubmed: 29122620
J Urol. 2018 May;199(5):1252-1261
pubmed: 29360529
Br J Urol. 1985 Apr;57(2):164-7
pubmed: 4039208
Br J Urol. 1994 Apr;73(4):442-8
pubmed: 8199835
J Urol. 1994 Jan;151(1):54-61
pubmed: 8254833
Br J Urol. 1998 Jun;81(6):830-3
pubmed: 9666766