Objective:

To compare perioperative outcomes, short-term adverse events, functional results, and retreatment rates between Rezūm and TURP using a new composite definition of procedural success, which integrates multiple outcome measures.

Key Findings:

• 96 patients treated with Rezūm were matched to 96 patients treated with TURP, with statistical significance noted in outcome differences.
• Indications for surgery differed significantly; medication side effects were more common in Rezūm patients, with p-values indicating statistical relevance.
• Rezūm was predominantly performed in outpatient settings, while TURP required hospital admission, highlighting differences in procedural settings.
• At 1 month post-procedure, Rezūm patients experienced more storage symptoms and acute urinary retention, with specific rates provided.

Interpretation:

The study provides comparative insights into the effectiveness and safety of Rezūm versus TURP, highlighting differences in patient demographics, procedural settings, and short-term outcomes, which may influence treatment decisions.

Limitations:

• Retrospective design may introduce selection bias, potentially affecting the reliability of the findings.
• Limited generalizability due to single-center data and specific inclusion criteria, which may not reflect broader patient populations.

Conclusion:

Rezūm shows promise as a minimally invasive alternative to TURP, but further studies are needed to validate long-term outcomes and broader applicability across diverse patient populations.