•  
  •  
 

Lynchburg Journal of Medical Science

Lynchburg Journal of Medical Science

Specialty

Urology

Advisor

Dr. Thomas Colletti

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to review prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and the potential benefits, risks, and appropriate candidates for the procedure compared to transurethral prostatic resection (TURP). A PubMed literature search was conducted with search terms PUL, TURP, and benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). Fifteen pertinent articles were retrieved and serve as the basis for this clinical review. TURP has been the traditional procedure for BPH, but it is associated with ejaculatory and erectile dysfunction. PUL is a minimally invasive option, but efficacy of the procedure has been poorly studied at present date. PUL has more exclusion criteria, limiting patients found to benefit from the procedure, while TURP has increased complications.This study finds both procedures should be afforded equal consideration, while noting limitations in each. Further long-term research is needed to establish if PUL is superior to TURP.

Restricted

Available when accessing via a campus IP address or logged in with a University of Lynchburg email address.

Off-campus users can also use 'Off-campus Download' button above for access.

Share

COinS