BPH With Urinary ObstructionPULTURNCT06037356
PUL vs TURP in BPH Patients With Urinary Retention
A study testing Prostatic Urethral Lift and TURP in people with BPH With Urinary Obstruction, run by Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
The study will be a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic urethral lift (PUL) versus transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) in benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) patients with urinary retention. The primary objective of this study is to compare the catheter-free rates of PUL vs TURP. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 40 years and older, men only
- Conditions the study is for
- BPH With Urinary Obstruction
- What is being tested?
- Prostatic Urethral Lift and TURP
- Type of treatment
- Medical device, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2025to 30 May 2035
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 40 years and older
- Men only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Male patients
- age >40 years old
- urinary retention who failed trial without catheter
Who cannot join
- Inability to provide consent OR no guardians or relatives to help provide consent on patient's behalf
- Active urinary tract infection
- Previous surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (i.e., TURP, prostatic urethral lift, etc.)
- Bladder stones
- Urethral strictures or bladder neck contractures
- Prostate size >100mL
Show all 10Show fewer
- Solely obstructing median lobe
- Urinary retention not due to obstruction (i.e., Bladder outflow obstruction index <20 on urodynamic studies)
- Poor detrusor contractility (maximum detrusor pressure <20cmH2O during voiding phase)
- Anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents that cannot be stopped
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
China1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Queen Mary Hospital
Hong Kong
Brian SH Ho, MBBS, (852)2255-3023, brianshho@gmail.com
Sau Loi Ng, BN, DN, (852)2255-3625, ngsauloi2009@gmail.com
About this study
Official title: Prostatic Urethral Lift Versus Transurethral Resection of Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Patients With Urinary Retention
The study will be a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic urethral lift (PUL) versus transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) in benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) patients with urinary retention. The primary objective of this study is to compare the catheter-free rates of PUL vs TURP. Secondary objectives include comparison of complications rates, cost effectiveness, patient satisfactory, symptom scores, quality of life measures and urodynamic parameters.
Read the detailed description
The study will be a prospective, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial with the aim of detecting a non-inferiority margin of 5%.
After the potential subject has been informed of the study and the potential risks, he will be screened for eligibility within a 4 week period. Assessment of eligibility will include questionnaires, blood tests, urine tests, uroflowmetry, flexible cystoscopy, transrectal ultrasound, and urodynamic study. Suitable subjects will then be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the prostatic urethral lift (intervention group) and TURP (control group). Patients in the prostatic urethral lift will have the procedure performed under local anesthesia or monitored anesthetic care while TURP patients will be performed under spinal or general anesthesia. The subjects will have regular follow up 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years post-operatively. Follow up assessments will include questionnaires, uroflowmetry, and occasional urodynamic study.
- Conditions
- BPH With Urinary Obstruction
- Being tested
- Prostatic Urethral Lift, TURP
- Keywords
- BPH, Urinary retention, prostatic urethral lift, PUL, TURP
- Medical subject headings
- Urinary Retention
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Prostatic Urethral LiftDevice
Also called PUL, Urolift
Prostatic urethral lift uses permanent implants to retract the prostate lobes away from the prostate urethra to allow unobstructed passage of urine. These implants are made of Nitinol, non-absorbable monofilament suture material (Poly Ethylene Terephthalate), Stainless Steel
TURPProcedure or surgery
Also called Transurethral resection of prostate
Using monopolar or bipolar loop diathermy via cystoscopy, excess prostate tissue is resected piecemeal to remove obstruction to the prostatic urethra due to BPH
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Prostatic Urethral Lift | Experimental | Prostatic urethral lift implants will be placed in patients under local anesthesia or monitored anesthetic care. The number of implants used will depend on intra-operative findings, ranging from 2 to 8 implants per patient. Receives: Device: Prostatic Urethral Lift |
| TURP | Active comparator | Transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) will be performed under spinal or general anesthesia as per usual care. Receives: Procedure: TURP |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Catheter-free rates after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP in BPH patients with urinary retention
To determine how many patients will be catheter-free (defined as by the ability to void with a post-void residual urine <300mL) after intervention and remain catheter-free at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year after intervention
Measured: 1 year after intervention
Secondary outcomes (12)
Compare complication rate of prostatic urethral lift versus TURP in BPH patients with urinary retention
To determine the percentage and severity of complications after each intervention (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification)
Measured: 5 years
Cost effectiveness of prostatic urethral lift versus TURP in achieving catheter-free rates in BPH patients with urinary retention
To determine the cost required to achieve catheter free patients for each intervention (including hospitalization, anesthetic costs, equipment, consumables, etc)
Measured: 1 year
Compare patient satisfaction by PGI-I questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Using the Patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) questionnaire to determine patient satisfaction after each intervention.
- minimum score is 1, maximum score is 7
- higher score means worse outcome
Measured: 1 year
Compare patient reported symptom measures by IPSS questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Using International prostate symptom score (IPSS) questionnaire to determine patient reported symptom measure after each intervention
- minimal score: 0, maximum score is 35
- higher score means worse outcome
Measured: 1 year
Compare patient reported symptom measures by ISI questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Using the Incontinence severity index (ISI) questionnaire to determine patient reported symptom measure after each intervention
- minimum score: 1, maximum score: 12
- higher score means worse outcome
Measured: 1 year
Compare patient reported symptom measures by IIEF-5 questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Using the International index of erectile function- 5 items (IIEF-5) questionnaire to determine patient reported symptom measure after each intervention
- minimum score: 1, maximum score: 25
- higher score means better outcome
Measured: 1 year
Compare patient reported symptom measures by MSHQ-EjD short form questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Using the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD) short form questionnaire to determine patient reported symptom measure after each intervention.
Measured: 1 year
Compare patient reported quality of life by SF-12 questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Using the Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire to determine patient reported quality of life measures after each intervention
- minimum score: 0, maximum score: 100
- higher score means better outcome
Measured: 1 year
Compare patient reported quality of life by derived SF-6D utility score after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Using the derived Short Form 6 Dimension (SF-6D) utility score questionnaire to determine patient reported quality of life measures after each intervention
- minimum score: 0, maximum score 1.0
- higher score means better outcome
Measured: 1 year
Compare patient reported recovery by VAS after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Using the Visual analogue scale of quality of recovery to determine patient reported recovery after each intervention
- minimum score: 0, maximum score 100
- higher score means better outcome
Measured: 1 year
Compare improvement bladder contractility index after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Pre- and post-intervention urodynamic will be performed to assess bladder contractility index as well as subsequent improvement and durability of above stated urodynamic parameter after each intervention
Measured: 5 year
Compare improvement of Bladder outflow obstruction index after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Pre- and post-intervention urodynamic will be performed to assess bladder outflow obstruction index (BOOI) as well as subsequent improvement and durability of above stated urodynamic parameter after each intervention
Measured: 5 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Sep 2023
- Study start1 Jan 2025
- Primary completion30 May 2035 (estimated)
- Study completion30 May 2035 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for BPH With Urinary ObstructionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- The study will be a prospective, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial with the aim of detecting a non-inferiority margin of 5%. Subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Brian Ho, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
- Investigators
- Brian SH Ho, MBBS, Principal investigator, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06037356
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- QMH PULTUR Study
- Acronym
- PULTUR
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 26 Apr 2023
- Last updated
- 24 Jul 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Garraway WM, Collins GN, Lee RJ. High prevalence of benign prostatic hypertrophy in the community. Lancet. 1991 Aug 24;338(8765):469-71. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90543-x.
PubMed 1714529Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, Girman CJ, Roberts RO, Rhodes T, Guess HA, Lieber MM. Treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia among community dwelling men: the Olmsted County study of urinary symptoms and health status. J Urol. 1999 Oct;162(4):1301-6.
PubMed 10492184Madersbacher S, Marberger M. Is transurethral resection of the prostate still justified? BJU Int. 1999 Feb;83(3):227-37. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00908.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 10233485Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC. Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. a cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. 1989. J Urol. 2002 Feb;167(2 Pt 2):999-1003; discussion 1004. No abstract available.
PubMed 11908420Neal DE. The National Prostatectomy Audit. Br J Urol. 1997 Apr;79 Suppl 2:69-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1997.tb16924.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 9126073Woo HH, Chin PT, McNicholas TA, Gill HS, Plante MK, Bruskewitz RC, Roehrborn CG. 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 Jul;108(1):82-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10342.x. Epub 2011 May 6.
PubMed 21554526Walsh LP. State of the art: Advanced techniques for prostatic urethral lift for the relief of prostate obstruction under local anesthesia. Can J Urol. 2017 Jun;24(3):8859-8864.
PubMed 28646943Eure G, Gange S, Walter P, Khan A, Chabert C, Mueller T, Cozzi P, Patel M, Freedman S, Chin P, Ochs S, Hirsh A, Trotter M, Grier D. Real-World Evidence of Prostatic Urethral Lift Confirms Pivotal Clinical Study Results: 2-Year Outcomes of a Retrospective Multicenter Study. J Endourol. 2019 Jul;33(7):576-584. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0167. Epub 2019 Jun 25.
PubMed 31115257Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Gange SN, Shore ND, Giddens JL, Bolton DM, Cowan BE, Cantwell AL, McVary KT, Te AE, Gholami SS, Moseley WG, Chin PT, Dowling WT, Freedman SJ, Incze PF, Coffield KS, Herron S, Rashid P, Rukstalis DB. Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study. Can J Urol. 2017 Jun;24(3):8802-8813.
PubMed 28646935McVary KT, Gange SN, Shore ND, Bolton DM, Cowan BE, Brown BT, Te AE, Chin PT, Rukstalis DB, Roehrborn CG; L.I.F.T. Study Investigators. Treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH while preserving sexual function: randomized controlled study of prostatic urethral lift. J Sex Med. 2014 Jan;11(1):279-87. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12333. Epub 2013 Sep 30.
PubMed 24119101Sievert KD, Schonthaler M, Berges R, Toomey P, Drager D, Herlemann A, Miller F, Wetterauer U, Volkmer B, Gratzke C, Amend B. Minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL) efficacious in TURP candidates: a multicenter German evaluation after 2 years. World J Urol. 2019 Jul;37(7):1353-1360. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2494-1. Epub 2018 Oct 3.
PubMed 30283994
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Prostatic Urethral Lift Versus Transurethral Resection of Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Patients With Urinary Retention
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06037356
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PULTUR / QMH PULTUR Study
- Conditions
- BPH With Urinary Obstruction
- Keywords
- BPH, Urinary retention, prostatic urethral lift, PUL, TURP
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Queen Mary Hospital, Hong KongUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 May 2035 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 May 2035 (estimated)
- First posted
- 14 Sep 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The study will be a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic urethral lift (PUL) versus transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) in benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) patients with urinary retention. The primary objective of this study is to compare the catheter-free rates of PUL vs TURP. Secondary objectives include comparison of complications rates, cost effectiveness, patient satisfactory, symptom scores, quality of life measures and urodynamic parameters.
Detailed description
The study will be a prospective, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial with the aim of detecting a non-inferiority margin of 5%.
After the potential subject has been informed of the study and the potential risks, he will be screened for eligibility within a 4 week period. Assessment of eligibility will include questionnaires, blood tests, urine tests, uroflowmetry, flexible cystoscopy, transrectal ultrasound, and urodynamic study. Suitable subjects will then be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the prostatic urethral lift (intervention group) and TURP (control group). Patients in the prostatic urethral lift will have the procedure performed under local anesthesia or monitored anesthetic care while TURP patients will be performed under spinal or general anesthesia. The subjects will have regular follow up 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years post-operatively. Follow up assessments will include questionnaires, uroflowmetry, and occasional urodynamic study.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The study will be a prospective, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial with the aim of detecting a non-inferiority margin of 5%. Subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Prostatic Urethral Lift | Experimental | Device: Prostatic Urethral LiftProstatic urethral lift implants will be placed in patients under local anesthesia or monitored anesthetic care. The number of implants used will depend on intra-operative findings, ranging from 2 to 8 implants per patient. |
| TURP | Active comparator | Procedure: TURPTransurethral resection of prostate (TURP) will be performed under spinal or general anesthesia as per usual care. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 40 years and older
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Male patients
- age >40 years old
- urinary retention who failed trial without catheter
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Inability to provide consent OR no guardians or relatives to help provide consent on patient's behalf
- Active urinary tract infection
- Previous surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (i.e., TURP, prostatic urethral lift, etc.)
- Bladder stones
- Urethral strictures or bladder neck contractures
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Prostatic Urethral LiftAlso: PUL, UroliftProstatic urethral lift uses permanent implants to retract the prostate lobes away from the prostate urethra to allow unobstructed passage of urine. These implants are made of Nitinol, non-absorbable monofilament suture material (Poly Ethylene Terephthalate), Stainless Steel | Device | Prostatic Urethral Lift |
| TURPAlso: Transurethral resection of prostateUsing monopolar or bipolar loop diathermy via cystoscopy, excess prostate tissue is resected piecemeal to remove obstruction to the prostatic urethra due to BPH | Procedure or surgery | TURP |
Primary outcome
Catheter-free rates after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP in BPH patients with urinary retention
Time frame: 1 year after intervention
To determine how many patients will be catheter-free (defined as by the ability to void with a post-void residual urine <300mL) after intervention and remain catheter-free at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year after intervention
12 secondary outcomes
Compare complication rate of prostatic urethral lift versus TURP in BPH patients with urinary retention
Time frame: 5 years
Cost effectiveness of prostatic urethral lift versus TURP in achieving catheter-free rates in BPH patients with urinary retention
Time frame: 1 year
Compare patient satisfaction by PGI-I questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 1 year
Compare patient reported symptom measures by IPSS questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 1 year
Compare patient reported symptom measures by ISI questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 1 year
Compare patient reported symptom measures by IIEF-5 questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 1 year
Compare patient reported symptom measures by MSHQ-EjD short form questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 1 year
Compare patient reported quality of life by SF-12 questionnaire after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 1 year
Compare patient reported quality of life by derived SF-6D utility score after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 1 year
Compare patient reported recovery by VAS after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 1 year
Compare improvement bladder contractility index after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 5 year
Compare improvement of Bladder outflow obstruction index after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP
Time frame: 5 year
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Jul 2025.
- Background: PubMed 1714529Garraway WM, Collins GN, Lee RJ. High prevalence of benign prostatic hypertrophy in the community. Lancet. 1991 Aug 24;338(8765):469-71. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90543-x.
- Background: PubMed 10492184Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, Girman CJ, Roberts RO, Rhodes T, Guess HA, Lieber MM. Treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia among community dwelling men: the Olmsted County study of urinary symptoms and health status. J Urol. 1999 Oct;162(4):1301-6.
- Background: PubMed 10233485Madersbacher S, Marberger M. Is transurethral resection of the prostate still justified? BJU Int. 1999 Feb;83(3):227-37. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00908.x. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 11908420Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC. Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. a cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. 1989. J Urol. 2002 Feb;167(2 Pt 2):999-1003; discussion 1004. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 9126073Neal DE. The National Prostatectomy Audit. Br J Urol. 1997 Apr;79 Suppl 2:69-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1997.tb16924.x. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 21554526Woo HH, Chin PT, McNicholas TA, Gill HS, Plante MK, Bruskewitz RC, Roehrborn CG. 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 Jul;108(1):82-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10342.x. Epub 2011 May 6.
- Background: PubMed 28646943Walsh LP. State of the art: Advanced techniques for prostatic urethral lift for the relief of prostate obstruction under local anesthesia. Can J Urol. 2017 Jun;24(3):8859-8864.
- Results publication: PubMed 31115257Eure G, Gange S, Walter P, Khan A, Chabert C, Mueller T, Cozzi P, Patel M, Freedman S, Chin P, Ochs S, Hirsh A, Trotter M, Grier D. Real-World Evidence of Prostatic Urethral Lift Confirms Pivotal Clinical Study Results: 2-Year Outcomes of a Retrospective Multicenter Study. J Endourol. 2019 Jul;33(7):576-584. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0167. Epub 2019 Jun 25.
- Results publication: PubMed 28646935Roehrborn CG, Barkin J, Gange SN, Shore ND, Giddens JL, Bolton DM, Cowan BE, Cantwell AL, McVary KT, Te AE, Gholami SS, Moseley WG, Chin PT, Dowling WT, Freedman SJ, Incze PF, Coffield KS, Herron S, Rashid P, Rukstalis DB. Five year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study. Can J Urol. 2017 Jun;24(3):8802-8813.
- Results publication: PubMed 24119101McVary KT, Gange SN, Shore ND, Bolton DM, Cowan BE, Brown BT, Te AE, Chin PT, Rukstalis DB, Roehrborn CG; L.I.F.T. Study Investigators. Treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH while preserving sexual function: randomized controlled study of prostatic urethral lift. J Sex Med. 2014 Jan;11(1):279-87. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12333. Epub 2013 Sep 30.
- Results publication: PubMed 30283994Sievert KD, Schonthaler M, Berges R, Toomey P, Drager D, Herlemann A, Miller F, Wetterauer U, Volkmer B, Gratzke C, Amend B. Minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL) efficacious in TURP candidates: a multicenter German evaluation after 2 years. World J Urol. 2019 Jul;37(7):1353-1360. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2494-1. Epub 2018 Oct 3.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for BPH With Urinary Obstruction
Not yet recruiting
Anterior Bridge-Preserving Versus Conventional Early Apical Release in Bipolar Enucleation of the Prostate
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, Benign Prostatic Obstruction
Not yet recruiting
Anterior Bridge-Preserving Versus Conventional Early Apical Release During Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, Benign Prostatic Obstruction
Recruiting
Evaluating the Clinical Efficacy of Thulio vs. Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate
BPH With Symptomatic Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, BPH With Urinary Obstruction
Active, not recruiting
Preoperative Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy to Minimize Stress Urinary Incontinence After Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia With Outflow Obstruction, Urinary Retention
RecruitingObservational study
Effect of Catheter Duration on Prostate Laser Enucleation Surgery Outcomes in Patients With Urinary Retention
Urinary Retention, Benign Prostate Obstruction (BPO)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Brian SH Ho, MBBS principal investigator
Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Prostatic Urethral Lift and TURP in people with BPH With Urinary Obstruction, run by Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Jul 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Brian SH Ho, MBBS ((852)2255-3023, hobrian@hku.hk), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Catheter-free rates after prostatic urethral lift versus TURP in BPH patients with urinary retention (time frame: 1 year after intervention). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06037356, which also lists 11 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Jul 2025.