2. UroToday Home
  3. Recent Abstracts
  4. Endourology & Urolithiasis
  5. Minimally Invasive Procedures

EAU 2018: Sexual Function After TUEB and HoLEP in Men with Prostate Size Greater Than 80 ml: Results of 9 Month Follow-up, Prospective Study

Copenhagen, Denmark (UroToday.com) Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) comes with significant impact to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), and surgical treatment for BPH is indicated in men with moderate to severe LUTS and resistant to pharmacologic treatment (i.e. via tamsulosin). According to EAU guidelines, TUEB and HoLEP are currently the recommended treatments for patients with BPH and prostate volumes greater than 80mL. However, from the patient perspective, sexual outcomes and maintenance of sexual function outcomes are of significant importance when considering surgical treatment of BPH.

Dr. Obidniak (MD) of St. Petersburg Clinical Hospital Department of Urology, St. Petersburg, Russia presents a single center, prospective study of 162 patients with BPH and prostate volumes greater than 80mL. Overall, 82 patients underwent TUEB (arm 1) and 80 patients underwent HoLEP (arm 2). All patients were assessed with the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire ejaculation Doman (MSHW-EjD) and the International Index of Erectile Function -5 (IIEF-5) in an effort to assess impact of 9-month sexual function outcomes in both procedures.

Overall, MSHQ-EjD was significantly impacted by both procedures as compared to baseline values (p<0.05) – ostensibly due to retrograde ejaculation changes. However, the IIEF-5 scores of both patient groups showed no statistically significant changes in either groups; rather, there was some improvement in sexual function post-procedure [not statistically significant]. In other words, retrograde ejaculation was impacted, but overall sexual function was not.

Dr. Obidniak asserts that both TUEB and HoLEP have similar impacts on patients’ erectile function and ejaculatory function. However, due to the small sample size of the current study, further studies comparing the two procedures should be further considered and the abovementioned concerns should be thoroughly discussed with the patients prior to pursuit of treatment.

Authors: Obidniak V., Popov S., Orlov I., Bayramov K., Sushina I., Malevich S., Viazovtsev P., Grin E.

Written by: Linda M. Huynh, B.S., University of California-Irvine, at the 2018 European Association of Urology Meeting EAU18, 16-20 March, 2018 Copenhagen, Denmark