Minimal-invasive Therapie: Wie ist der Stand im Jahre 2021 – was kommt, was geht

Zusammenfassung

Die Volkskrankheit „benignes Prostatasyndrom“ erfordert mit der Vielzahl an betroffenen Männern und einer variablen klinischen Präsentation individuelle Therapieoptionen, die auf die jeweiligen klinischen Charakteristika und Wünsche des Patienten zugeschnitten werden. Ist eine operative Therapie indiziert, steht ein großes Spektrum an invasiven Verfahren zur Verfügung. Als Goldstandard galten lange Zeit die transurethrale Resektion der Prostata und die offene Adenomenukleation, die jedoch mit erhöhter Morbidität und Einschränkungen der Sexualfunktion einhergehen. Daher wird zunehmend nach minimal-invasiven Therapieoptionen gefordert, die eine effektive und sichere Therapie im ambulanten Setting ermöglichen sollen. Über die letzten Jahre wurde eine Vielzahl an Technologien und Verfahren entwickelt und getestet, von denen nur wenige in der klinischen Praxis etabliert werden konnten, meist aufgrund unzureichender funktioneller Ergebnisse. Nicht mehr empfohlen werden daher die transurethrale Nadelablation, transurethrale Mikrowellentherapie, intraprostatische Botulinumtoxin-A- oder PRX302-Injektionen und prostatische Stents. Demgegenüber spricht die Europäische Gesellschaft für Urologie derzeit Empfehlungen für den UroLift, die Aquablation und die Prostataarterienembolisation aus, die langfristig signifikante Verbesserungen der funktionellen Parameter erreichen und dabei mit einem guten Sicherheitsprofil und erhaltener Sexualfunktion überzeugen. Vielversprechende Daten liegen auch für das temporär implantierte Nitinoldevice (iTIND), Rezūm, intraprostatische Injektionen von Fexapotid-Triflurtat und die transperineale Laserablation der Prostata vor, deren Effektivität und Sicherheit jedoch noch in weiteren Studien bestätigt werden müssen.

Abstract

Due to the large number of men affected and a variable clinical presentation, the widespread disease “benign prostatic syndrome” requires individual treatment options tailored to the patient’s specific clinical characteristics and wishes. If surgical treatment is indicated, there is a wide range of invasive procedures available. For a long time, transurethral resection of the prostate and simple prostatectomy were considered the gold standard, but these procedures are associated with increased morbidity and limitations in sexual function. Therefore, there is now an increasing call for minimally invasive treatment options that will provide effective and safe treatment in the outpatient setting. Over the past years, a variety of technologies and procedures have been developed and tested, but only a few of them have found their way into clinical practice, mostly due to insufficient functional results. For instance, transurethral needle ablation, transurethral microwave thermotherapy, intraprostatic botulinum toxin A or PRX302 injections as well as prostatic stents are no longer recommended. In contrast, the European Association of Urology is currently recommending UroLift, Aquablation and prostatic artery embolisation, which achieve significant long-term improvements in functional parameters while providing a good safety profile and preserved sexual function. Promising data are also available for the temporarily implanted nitinol device (iTIND), Rezūm, intraprostatic injection of fexapotide triflutate and transperineal laser ablation of the prostate, but the efficacy and safety of these procedures need to be confirmed in further studies.

Schlüsselwörter

Benignes Prostatasyndrom - Benigne Prostatahyperplasie - Minimal-invasive Therapie - LUTS - Prostata

Keywords

benign prostatic hyperplasia - benign prostatic syndrome - minimally invasive treatment - lower urinary tract symptoms - prostate

Publication History

Received: 19 November 2021

Accepted after revision: 03 February 2022

Article published online:
01 March 2022

• Referenzen

• 1 Gratzke C, Schlenker B, Seitz M. et al. Complications and early postoperative outcome after open prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic enlargement: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Urol 2007; 177: 1419-1422
• 2 Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A. et al. Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 2008; 180: 246-249
• 3 Zhang Y, Yuan P, Ma D. et al. Efficacy and safety of enucleation vs. resection of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019; 22: 493-508
• 4 Marra G, Sturch P, Oderda M. et al. Systematic review of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical treatments on men’s ejaculatory function: Time for a bespoke approach?. Int J Urol 2016; 23: 22-35
• 5 Bozzini G, Berti L, Maltagliati M. et al. Ejaculation-sparing thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ES-ThuLEP): outcomes on a large cohort. World J Urol 2021; 39: 2029-2035
• 6 Alloussi SH, Lang C, Eichel R. et al. Ejaculation-preserving transurethral resection of prostate and bladder neck: short- and long-term results of a new innovative resection technique. J Endourol 2014; 28: 84-89
• 7 Gravas S, Cornu JN, Drake M. et al. EAU Guidelines on Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO). 2018
• 8 Aoun F, Marcelis Q, Roumeguère T. Minimally invasive devices for treating lower urinary tract symptoms in benign prostate hyperplasia: Technology update. Res Reports Urol 2015; 7: 125-136
• 9 Franco JVA, Garegnani L, Escobar Liquitay CM. et al. Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: An Updated Cochrane Review. World J Mens Health 2021;
• 10 Haroun H, Eltatawy H, Soliman MG. et al. Evaluation of outcome of transurethral needle ablation for treating symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: A 10-year experience. Urol Ann 2019; 11: 198-203
• 11 Gravas S, Cornu J, Gacci M. et al. EAU Guidelines on Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO). 2019
• 12 Armitage JN, Cathcart PJ, Rashidian A. et al. Epithelializing Stent for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Urol 2007; 177: 1619-1624
• 13 Shim SR, Cho YJ, Shin IS. et al. Efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin injection for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 2016; 48: 19-30
• 14 Elhilali MM, Pommerville P, Yocum RC. et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind, vehicle controlled, multicenter phase IIb clinical trial of the pore forming protein PRX302 for targeted treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2013; 189: 1421-1426
• 15 Denmeade SR, Egerdie B, Steinhoff G. et al. Phase 1 and 2 studies demonstrate the safety and efficacy of intraprostatic injection of PRX302 for the targeted treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 747-754
• 16 Parikh KA, Dora CD. Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate After Failed UroLift: Surgical Considerations for the Management of Nonabsorbable Implants. Urology 2019; 132: 212
• 17 Perera M, Roberts MJ, Doi SAR. et al. Prostatic urethral lift improves urinary symptoms and flow while preserving sexual function for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 704-713
• 18 Woo HH, Bolton DM, Laborde E. et al. Preservation of Sexual Function with the Prostatic Urethral Lift: A Novel Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. J Sex Med 2012; 9: 568-575
• 19 Woo HH, Chin PT, McNicholas TA. et al. Safety and feasibility of the prostatic urethral lift: A novel, minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). BJU Int 2011; 108: 82-88
• 20 Roehrborn CG, Gange SN, Shore ND. et al. The prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: The L.I.F.T. study. J Urol 2013; 190: 2161-2167
• 21 McNicholas TA, Woo HH, Chin PT. et al. Minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift: Surgical technique and multinational experience. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 292-299
• 22 Chin PT, Bolton DM, Jack G. et al. Prostatic urethral lift: Two-year results after treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2012; 79: 5-11
• 23 Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Gange SN. et al. Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study. Can J Urol 2017; 24: 8802-8813
• 24 Gratzke C, Barber N, Speakman MJ. et al. Prostatic urethral lift vs transurethral resection of the prostate: 2-year results of the BPH6 prospective, multicentre, randomized study. BJU Int 2017; 119: 767-775
• 25 Rukstalis D, Grier D, Stroup SP. et al. Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) for obstructive median lobes: 12 month results of the MedLift Study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019; 22: 411-419
• 26 Gravas S, Cornu JN, Gacci M. et al. EAU Guidelines on Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), incl. Benign Prostatic Obstructions (BPO). Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2021. 2021
• 27 MacRae C, Gilling P. How I do it: Aquablation of the prostate using the aquabeam system. Can J Urol 2016; 23: 8590–8593. Accessed June 24, 2021 at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27995858/
• 28 Müllhaupt G, Enzler-Tschudy A, Horg K. et al. Informative value of histological assessment of tissue acquired during aquablation of the prostate. World J Urol 2021; 39
• 29 Gilling P, Barber N, Bidair M. et al. Three-year outcomes after Aquablation therapy compared to TURP: results from a blinded randomized trial. Can J Urol 2020; 27: 10072-10079
• 30 Gross AJ, Lipp MJ, Baumbach R. et al. Rectal perforation after aquablation of the prostate: lessons learned the hard way. World J Urol 2021; 1-6
• 31 Desai M, Bidair M, Zorn KC. et al. Aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large prostates (80–150 mL): 6-month results from the WATER II trial. BJU Int 2019; 124: 321-328
• 32 Desai M, Bidair M, Bhojani N. et al. Aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large prostates (80–150 cc): 2-year results. Can J Urol 2020; 27: 10147-10153
• 33 Abt D, Hechelhammer L, Müllhaupt G. et al. Comparison of prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial. BMJ 2018; 361: k2338
• 34 Zhang JL, Wang MQ, Shen YG. et al. Effectiveness of contrast-enhanced MR angiography for visualization of the prostatic artery prior to prostatic arterial embolization. Radiology 2019; 291: 370-378
• 35 Zumstein V, Betschart P, Vetterlein MW. et al. Prostatic Artery Embolization versus Standard Surgical Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2019; 5: 1091-1100
• 36 Abt D, Müllhaupt G, Hechelhammer L. et al. Prostatic Artery Embolisation Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 2-yr Outcomes of a Randomised, Open-label, Single-centre Trial. Eur Urol 2021; 80: 34-42
• 37 Shim SR, Kanhai KJK, Ko YM. et al. Efficacy and Safety of Prostatic Arterial Embolization: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression. J Urol 2017; 197: 465-479
• 38 Jiang YL, Qian LJ. Transurethral resection of the prostate versus prostatic artery embolization in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A meta-analysis. BMC Urol 2019; 19
• 39 Couture F, Belzile F, Noël-Lamy M. et al. Images – Penile necrotic ulcer following prostatic artery embolization: A rare complication. Can Urol Assoc J 2020; 14: E347
• 40 Moreira AM, de Assis AM, Carnevale FC. et al. A Review of Adverse Events Related to Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Bladder Outlet Obstruction Due to BPH. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 2017 4010 2017; 40: 1490-1500
• 41 Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R. et al. 3-Year follow-up of temporary implantable nitinol device implantation for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. BJU Int 2018; 122: 106-112
• 42 Kadner G, Valerio M, Giannakis I. et al. Second generation of temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 2 year results of the MT-02-study. World J Urol 2020; 38: 3235-3244
• 43 Amparore D, De Cillis S, Volpi G. et al. First- and Second-Generation Temporary Implantable Nitinol Devices As Minimally Invasive Treatments for BPH-Related LUTS: Systematic Review of the Literature. Curr Urol Rep 2019; 20: 47
• 44 Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Amparore D. et al. Second-generation of temporary implantable nitinol device for the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: results of a prospective, multicentre study at 1 year of follow-up. BJU Int 2019; 123: 1061-1069
• 45 McVary KT, Gange SN, Gittelman MC. et al. Erectile and ejaculatory function preserved with convective water vapor energy treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: Randomized controlled study. J Sex Med 2016; 13: 924-933
• 46 McVary KT, Rogers T, Roehrborn CG. Rezūm Water Vapor Thermal Therapy for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Associated With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 4-Year Results From Randomized Controlled Study. Urology 2019; 126: 171-179
• 47 Magistro G, Stief CG, Gratzke C. New intraprostatic injectables and prostatic urethral lift for male LUTS. Nat Rev Urol 2015; 12: 461-471
• 48 Shore N, Tutrone R, Efros M. et al. Fexapotide triflutate: results of long-term safety and efficacy trials of a novel injectable therapy for symptomatic prostate enlargement. World J Urol 2018; 36: 801-809
• 49 Frego N, Saita A, Casale P. et al. Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of ultrasound-guided transperineal laser ablation for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single institutional experience. World J Urol 2021;
• 50 de Rienzo G, Lorusso A, Minafra P. et al. Transperineal interstitial laser ablation of the prostate, a novel option for minimally invasive treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol 2021; 80: 95-103
• 51 Cai HJ, Fang JH, Kong FL. et al. Ultrasound-guided transperineal laser ablation for percutaneous treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a new minimally invasive interventional therapy. Acta radiol 2021;
• 52 Pacella CM, Patelli G, Iapicca G. et al. Transperineal laser ablation for percutaneous treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a feasibility study. Results at 6 and 12 months from a retrospective multi-centric study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020; 23: 356-363