CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07759752THRIVEUpdated Aug 24, 2026

Transurethral Thermodilatation vs. Prostatic Urethral Lift for Moderate-to-Severe BPH

An interventional study of Prolieve Transurethral Thermodilatation System and UroLift Prostatic Urethral Lift System in BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia) and LUTS(Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms), sponsored by The University of Hong Kong. Recruiting at 1 site in Hong Kong. Open to male participants aged 50 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-24.

Sponsored by The University of Hong Kong · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
150
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
50 Years to 80 Years
Sex
Male
01

Study summary

This clinical trial aims to determine whether Prolieve® (microwave with balloon dilation) is as effective as UroLift® (prostate implants) for treating moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms in men aged 50-80 with enlarged prostates (BPH) who have failed oral medications.

The main questions are:

  1. Is Prolieve non-inferior to UroLift in improving IPSS symptom scores at 3 months?
  2. Does Prolieve cause less pain and avoid the need for injected anaesthesia?

Researchers will compare Prolieve (LA urethral gel only, no injections) against UroLift (LA urethral gel with or without local anaesthetic injection) to see if Prolieve offers similar relief with better tolerability.

Participants will stop their BPH medications for 2-4 weeks, undergo one of the two same-day office procedures, and attend follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months for symptom scores, flow tests, and bladder scans.

Read the detailed description

Clinical Context and Unmet Need Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common consequence of male ageing. In Hong Kong, over half of men in their 60s experience lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) that can significantly impair quality of life-disrupting sleep, limiting social activities, and causing bothersome urgency, frequency, and weak stream. As the local population continues to age, the absolute number of men requiring effective, low-risk procedural relief is set to rise substantially.

While traditional surgical options such as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or laser enucleation (HoLEP) offer durable, highly effective outcomes, they mandate general or spinal anaesthesia, carry inherent risks of bleeding and transfusion, and frequently cause permanent retrograde ejaculation. These barriers exclude a significant portion of older men-particularly those on anticoagulants or with significant cardiovascular or respiratory comorbidities-from benefiting from procedural intervention.

This trial directly compares two contemporary minimally invasive surgical therapies (MISTs) that operate on fundamentally different biophysical principles:

UroLift® (Prostatic Urethral Lift - PUL) acts as a purely mechanical retraction device. Under cystoscopic visualisation, the operator deploys small, permanent nitinol (nickel-titanium) anchors to physically pull the obstructing prostatic lobes apart, widening the urethral channel. It does not ablate, resect, or thermally injure prostate tissue. Its effects are immediate and structural, relying on sustained mechanical traction.

Prolieve® (Transurethral Thermodilatation - TUTD) combines two synchronous therapeutic actions: (1) a 46 French (15.3 mm) balloon that mechanically dilates the prostatic urethra, and (2) simultaneous low-power microwave energy (up to 50 W) delivered via an intraurethral antenna, which gently heats the periurethral prostatic tissue to 41-46°C. This thermal dose induces controlled coagulation necrosis and protein denaturation. In the 4 to 12 weeks following the treatment, stromal remodelling results in a patent lumen. The balloon also serves to compress and flatten the obstructing tissue during heating, ensuring uniform energy delivery.

Compared to Urolift, a critical practical advantage of the Prolieve system is that its entire procedure can be performed using only topical intraurethral lidocaine gel-no periprostatic nerve blocks, no intravenous sedation, and no operating theatre are required. By contrast, while UroLift is often described as office-based, contemporary real-world practice employs periprostatic local anaesthetic injections (or, in some centres, monitored anaesthesia care or even general anaesthesia) to manage patient discomfort during capsular anchor deployment. This trial is therefore designed not only to test non-inferiority in symptom relief, but also to provide rigorous comparative data on procedural tolerability-specifically, whether avoiding needles and sedation compromises efficacy, or conversely, whether Prolieve offers a more patient-centred, accessible treatment pathway with equivalent clinical outcomes.

Trial Operational Framework:

This is a prospective, open-label, parallel-group, 1:1 randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, conducted at the Department of Surgery (Division of Urology) at Queen Mary Hospital / The University of Hong Kong. Following a comprehensive screening visit that confirms eligibility (including transrectal ultrasound for prostate volume, uroflowmetry, and post-void residual measurement), participants undergo a mandatory medication washout period-alpha-blockers are stopped for at least 2 weeks, and 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors for at least 4 weeks-to eliminate any confounding drug effects.

Randomisation occurs centrally via a validated web-based interactive system immediately prior to the scheduled procedure. Allocation is stratified by two pre-specified factors: prostate volume (\<40 g versus ≥40 g), because the Prolieve pivotal study demonstrated markedly higher responder rates in smaller glands; and baseline IPSS severity (moderate, 13-19, versus severe, ≥20), recognising that minimal important differences may vary with baseline burden. Block randomisation with randomly varied block sizes ensures allocation concealment, and the allocation sequence is held independently of the clinical team.

Participant Journey and Procedural Standardisation:

On the treatment day, participants in the Prolieve arm receive 10-15 mL of 2% lidocaine gel intraurethrally, left in situ for 10-15 minutes. The Prolieve treatment catheter is then inserted, the anchoring balloon inflated in the bladder, and the 46 Fr compression balloon inflated to 14-15 PSI. Microwave energy is applied for a fixed 45-minute treatment cycle, with a rectal temperature probe providing continuous safety feedback. Immediately after treatment, the balloon is deflated and the catheter withdrawn; the bladder is filled with 200 mL sterile water to provoke an immediate trial of voiding. Participants are observed for 1-2 hours and discharged if they can void a sufficient volume with an acceptable residual.

Participants in the UroLift arm undergo cystoscopic deployment of 4-6 permanent implants to retract the lateral lobes, per the manufacturer's standard technique. Anaesthetic modality is not mandated but is captured prospectively in the electronic case report form; it may be topical gel alone or topical gel supplemented with a periprostatic nerve block, reflecting real-world variation. No routine post-procedural catheter is placed unless the patient fails the immediate voiding trial.

To ensure fair comparison, both arms receive identical post-procedural supportive care: a short course of oral NSAIDs for discomfort (up to 5 days, unless contraindicated) and a standardised, time-limited course of tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily from the day of procedure, tapered and discontinued at the 1-month visit. This standardisation eliminates post-procedural medication as a source of differential bias. From month 1 onward, BPH medical therapy is not routinely prescribed unless pre-defined rescue criteria are met (persistent severe symptoms with bother), ensuring that the 3-, 6-, and 12-month outcomes reflect the intrinsic durability of the device effect rather than pharmacological rescue.

Non-Inferiority Margin and Sample Size:

The non-inferiority margin is set at 3 absolute IPSS points, derived from the classic distribution-based minimal important difference (MID) of approximately 3.1 points. Importantly, more recent anchor-based estimates suggest the MID may be as large as 5.2-5.3 points; therefore, the chosen 3-point margin is conservative and stringent, requiring Prolieve to fall well within the modern anchor-based clinically meaningful threshold. The primary analysis uses an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline IPSS and the two stratification factors, with the between-arm difference in 3-month IPSS change calculated as Prolieve minus UroLift. Non-inferiority is declared only if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is strictly less than +3.0 points. As per ICH E9 guidelines, non-inferiority must be demonstrated consistently in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations for the conclusion to be robust.

The sample size of 75 participants per arm (150 total) provides 80% power under the assumptions of a pooled standard deviation of 6 points and an expected mean improvement of -9 points in both arms, with a 15% allowance for dropout and protocol deviations. A formal interim analysis, conducted by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) after 50% of participants have completed the 3-month primary endpoint, will focus on safety surveillance and sample size re-estimation based on observed variance. Early stopping for efficacy is not planned, consistent with the conservative principles governing non-inferiority designs. The DSMB will, however, recommend early termination if the rate of serious adverse events (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥3) in either arm exceeds 10%, or if a statistically significant and clinically meaningful imbalance in serious harms is detected.

Blinding and Bias Mitigation:

While it is not feasible to blind participants or treating operators to the distinct procedural experiences (one involves cystoscopic implant deployment, the other a 45-minute microwave session with a balloon catheter), stringent measures are in place to minimise assessment and analytical bias. All outcome assessors conducting IPSS interviews, uroflowmetry, and bladder ultrasound at follow-up visits are kept unaware of the treatment allocation. The IPSS questionnaire is self-administered by participants without interviewer interference, further reducing interviewer-driven bias. Finally, the primary statistician remains blinded to group labels until the database is locked and the analysis plan is fully executed.

Safety Monitoring and Ethical Oversight:

The study is conducted under the ethical oversight of the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong / Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster (HKU/HA HKW IRB), and all participants provide written informed consent in either English or Traditional Chinese. Personal data are handled in strict compliance with the Hong Kong Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486), captured and stored on the secure, encrypted REDCap platform hosted on HKU servers, with access rigorously restricted to delegated study personnel. Data are retained for 10 years following study conclusion, after which they are securely destroyed per Hospital Authority standards.

Broader Implications and Health Economic Exploration:

If this trial establishes non-inferiority of Prolieve relative to UroLift, it will provide the first high-level, head-to-head randomised evidence supporting a truly needle-free, sedation-free, and injection-free office MIST as a viable alternative to implant-based mechanical retraction. Such evidence could expand procedural access to patients with prohibitive anaesthetic risk, or those with a strong preference to avoid periprostatic injections. Additionally, the trial incorporates an exploratory health economic analysis-calculating the direct procedural cost plus downstream resource utilisation (general practitioner visits, retreatments, hospitalisations) per responder (IPSS reduction ≥5 points at 3 months)-to inform local healthcare policymakers and ensure that any clinical advantage is interpreted alongside its financial sustainability within the Hong Kong public healthcare system. The trial is investigator-initiated; Prolieve procedure kits are provided as an in-kind contribution by Medifocus Inc., but the funding body has no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or publication decisions, ensuring full academic independence.

02

Conditions studied

  • BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia)
  • LUTS(Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms)

Keywords

  • Transurethral Thermodilatation
  • Prostatic Urethral Lift
  • BPH
  • LUTS
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
50 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
Male
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Participants must satisfy ALL of the following:

  • Male, aged ≥ 50 and ≤ 80 years
  • Moderate-to-severe LUTS due to BPH: IPSS total score ≥ 13 at screening
  • Peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) ≥ 5 and ≤ 12 mL/s with minimum voided volume ≥ 125 mL on free uroflowmetry. The lower Qmax bound of ≥ 5 mL/s excludes near-complete retention with likely detrusor underactivity, as adopted in the Rezūm pivotal trial
  • Prostate volume 30-80 g by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) or multiparametric MRI, consistent with the L.I.F.T. and Rezūm pivotal study ranges
  • Post-void residual (PVR) ≤ 250 mL by bladder ultrasound
  • Currently on, or has previously tried, medical therapy for BPH (alpha-blocker and/or 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor) for ≥ 4 weeks with inadequate symptom control, or documented intolerance to medical therapy
  • Able to provide written informed consent
  • Able and willing to attend all study follow-up visits

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

Participants will be excluded if ANY of the following apply:

  • Intravesical prostatic protrusion > 10 mm on TRUS.
  • Presence of metallic pelvic implants, penile prosthesis, femoral metallic implant, cardiac pacemaker, or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
  • Previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), HoLEP, or any prior endoscopic prostate surgery.
  • Prior pelvic radiation therapy.
  • Prostatic urethral length \< 1.2 cm or > 5.5 cm.
  • Confirmed or suspected prostate carcinoma (unresolved elevated PSA without negative biopsy, or any known malignancy).
  • Active urinary tract infection at screening.
  • Bladder stone, bladder tumour, or suspected bladder malignancy.
  • Urethral stricture or bladder neck contracture precluding catheter passage (Foley ≥ 18 Fr).
  • Neurogenic bladder or known clinically significant detrusor underactivity.
  • History of acute urinary retention.
  • Coagulopathy or therapeutic anticoagulation that cannot be bridged perioperatively.
  • Renal impairment: eGFR \< 30 mL/min/1.73 m² (Cockcroft-Gault).
  • Desire to preserve fertility (due to risk of retrograde ejaculation with either device).
  • IPSS QoL bother score \< 3 (patient not sufficiently bothered to warrant procedural intervention).
  • Participation in another interventional clinical trial within the preceding 30 days.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
150 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Prolieve Transurethral Thermodilatation

    Prolieve TUTD involves inserting a treatment catheter under intraurethral lidocaine gel only (no injected anaesthetic or sedation). A 46 French balloon dilates the prostatic urethra while microwave energy (≤50 W) heats periurethral tissue to 41-46°C for 45 minutes, combining mechanical dilatation with thermal ablation. Catheter removed immediately post-procedure; same-day discharge.

    Device: Prolieve Transurethral Thermodilatation System

  • Active comparator
    UroLift Prostatic Urethral Lift

    UroLift PUL involves cystoscopic deployment of 4-6 permanent nitinol anchors to retract obstructing lateral prostatic lobes, mechanically widening the urethra without tissue ablation. Performed with topical intraurethral lidocaine gel, with or without periprostatic nerve block per site practice. No routine post-procedural catheterisation; same-day discharge.

    Device: UroLift Prostatic Urethral Lift System

Interventions

  • DeviceProlieve Transurethral Thermodilatation System

    Prolieve is a minimally invasive, FDA-approved thermotherapy device for BPH. It delivers simultaneous microwave energy (≤50 W) and 46 French balloon dilatation to the prostatic urethra for 45 minutes. It is performed under intraurethral lidocaine gel only-no injected anaesthesia, no sedation, and no operating theatre. Catheter is removed immediately post-procedure; same-day discharge.

    Also known as: Prolieve TUTD, Prolieve System

  • DeviceUroLift Prostatic Urethral Lift System

    UroLift is a minimally invasive, FDA-cleared device for BPH. It deploys 4-6 permanent nitinol implants under cystoscopic guidance to mechanically retract and hold open the obstructing prostatic lobes, widening the urethra without tissue ablation. Performed with topical intraurethral lidocaine gel, with or without periprostatic nerve block per site practice. No routine post-procedural catheterisation; same-day discharge.

    Also known as: UroLift PUL, UroLift System

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 3 Months

    Mean change in total IPSS score from baseline to 3 months post-procedure. IPSS ranges from 0-35 (higher = worse symptoms); negative change indicates improvement. Non-inferiority margin is 3 points. Analysis uses ANCOVA with treatment arm as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline IPSS, prostate volume stratum (\<40 vs ≥40 g), and baseline IPSS severity stratum (moderate 13-19 vs severe ≥20).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months post-procedure

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in IPSS total score at 6 months

    Mean change in total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) from baseline to 6 months. IPSS ranges 0-35 (higher = worse symptoms); negative change indicates improvement.

    Time frame: Baseline to 6 months post-procedure

  2. Change in IPSS Quality of Life Bother Score

    Mean change in IPSS Item 8 (QoL bother score, scale 0-6, higher = more bother) from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months post-procedure

  3. Change in peak urinary flow rate (Qmax)

    Mean change in Qmax (mL/s) measured by free uroflowmetry from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months. Higher values indicate improved flow.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months post-procedure

  4. Change in post-void residual volume (PVR)

    Mean change in PVR (mL) measured by bladder ultrasound from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months. Lower values indicate better bladder emptying.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months post-procedure

  5. Change in erectile function (IIEF-5)

    Mean change in International Index of Erectile Function-5 score (scale 5-25, lower = worse erectile function) from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months post-procedure

  6. Antegrade ejaculation preservation rate

    Proportion of participants reporting preserved antegrade ejaculation (self-reported as yes/no/changed compared to baseline) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

    Time frame: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-procedure

  7. Intra-procedural pain score

    Numeric rating scale (0-10, higher = more pain) assessed immediately after the index procedure.

    Time frame: Index procedure (Day 0)

  8. Anaesthetic modality used

    Categorisation of anaesthetic administered during UroLift procedure (topical lidocaine gel only vs topical gel + periprostatic nerve block). Descriptive comparison between arms.

    Time frame: Index procedure (Day 0)

  9. Surgical retreatment rate

    Proportion of participants requiring any surgical retreatment for BPH (TURP, HoLEP, laser vaporisation, or repeat MIST) at 6 and 12 months.

    Time frame: 6 and 12 months post-procedure

  10. Composite treatment success at 3 months

    Proportion of participants achieving IPSS reduction ≥5 points from baseline AND no surgical retreatment at 3 months.

    Time frame: 3 months post-procedure

  11. Post-procedural catheterisation rate

    Proportion of participants requiring urethral catheterisation within 24 hours of the index procedure (failure of immediate voiding trial).

    Time frame: Within 24 hours of index procedure

  12. Rate of serious adverse events (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥3)

    Proportion of participants experiencing Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥3 adverse events (including hospitalisation, need for surgical intervention, or life-threatening events) at 30 days and 12 months.

    Time frame: 30 days and 12 months post-procedure

Other outcomes

  1. Cost per responder at 3 months

    Exploratory health economic outcome: direct procedural costs plus downstream resource use (GP visits, retreatments, hospitalisations) per patient achieving IPSS reduction ≥5 points at 3 months, expressed in Hong Kong dollars.

    Time frame: 3 months post-procedure

06

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Queen Mary Hospital
    Hong Kong, Hong Kong
    • Shung Lai John Leung, MBBS, FRCSEd, FCSHK, FHKAM · Contact · jslleung@hku.hk · +852 2255 4310
    • Yusra Saleem, BSc · Contact · yusra@hku.hk
    • Shung Lai John Leung, MBBS, FRCSEd, FCHK, FHKAM · Principal investigator
    • Tsui Lin Ada Ng, MBBS, MPH, FRCSEd, FCHK, FHKAM · Sub investigator
    Recruiting
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, O'leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, Cockett AT; Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. The American Urological Association Symptom Index for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. J Urol. 2017 Feb;197(2S):S189-S197. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.071. Epub 2016 Dec 22. PubMed 28012747 ↗
  • Olweny EO, Jow SL, Jow WW. Prolieve Transurethral Thermodilatation for Treatment of Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 5-Year Results from a Prospective Multicenter Trial. J Endourol. 2022 Jan;36(1):117-123. doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0240. Epub 2021 Nov 1. PubMed 34314241 ↗
  • 21. Lerner LB, et al. AUA Guideline Amendment 2023 - TUMT background evidence. J Urol. 2024
  • McVary KT, Rogers T, Roehrborn CG. Rezum Water Vapor Thermal Therapy for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Associated With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 4-Year Results From Randomized Controlled Study. Urology. 2019 Apr;126:171-179. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.041. Epub 2019 Jan 21. PubMed 30677455 ↗
  • Wiemer L, Lehmacher W, Schonburg S, Gratzke C, Miller K, Patrick Papp C. Defining the Minimal Important Difference in International Prostate Symptom Score for Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Using a Patient-centered Anchor Measure. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2025 Sep 25;81:44-49. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2025.09.003. eCollection 2025 Nov. PubMed 41079976 ↗
  • Kristensen-Alvarez A, Fode M, Stroomberg HV, Nielsen KK, Arch A, Lonn LB, Taudorf M, Widecrantz SJ, Roder A. Non-inferiority, randomised, open-label clinical trial on the effectiveness of transurethral microwave thermotherapy compared to prostatic artery embolisation in reducing severe lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: study protocol for the TUMT-PAE-1 trial. Trials. 2024 Sep 2;25(1):574. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08409-x. PubMed 39223593 ↗
  • Barry MJ, et al. Measurement of minimal important differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score. Urology. 1995.
  • Roehrborn 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 28646935 ↗
  • Roehrborn CG, Gange SN, Shore ND, Giddens JL, Bolton DM, Cowan BE, Brown BT, McVary KT, Te AE, Gholami SS, Rashid P, Moseley WG, Chin PT, Dowling WT, Freedman SJ, Incze PF, Coffield KS, Borges FD, Rukstalis DB. 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 Dec;190(6):2161-7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.116. Epub 2013 Jun 11. PubMed 23764081 ↗
  • Franco JV, Garegnani L, Escobar Liquitay CM, Borofsky M, Dahm P. Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 28;6(6):CD004135. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004135.pub4. PubMed 34180047 ↗
  • Dixon C, et al. Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study evaluating the safety and efficacy of prostatic tissue ablation with the Rezūm system. Can J Urol. 2015.
  • Dixon C, Cedano ER, Pacik D, Vit V, Varga G, Wagrell L, Tornblom M, Mynderse L, Larson T. Efficacy and Safety of Rezum System Water Vapor Treatment for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Urology. 2015 Nov;86(5):1042-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.05.046. Epub 2015 Jul 26. PubMed 26216644 ↗
  • Dupitout L, Bladou F, Bernhard JC, Capon G, Alezra E, Simeon H, Michiels C, Allenet C, Deslandes M, Marquette T, Robert G. [Prostatic Urethral Lift under local anesthesia: Single-centre retrospective observational study]. Prog Urol. 2022 Mar;32(3):182-188. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2021.09.003. Epub 2021 Oct 6. French. PubMed 34627668 ↗
  • Moretto S, Wirtzfeld N, Doizi S. Local anesthesia for UroLift(R): a systematic review of the literature. World J Urol. 2025 Jul 15;43(1):435. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05795-y. PubMed 40663180 ↗
  • 6. Prolieve® System User Manual and Instructions for Use. Medifocus Inc. Part No. 90399939-02 Rev. D.
  • 5. EAU Guidelines on Management of Non-neurogenic Male LUTS. European Association of Urology. 2026.
  • Sandhu JS, Bixler BR, Dahm P, Goueli R, Kirkby E, Stoffel JT, Wilt TJ. Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): AUA Guideline Amendment 2023. J Urol. 2024 Jan;211(1):11-19. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003698. Epub 2023 Sep 14. PubMed 37706750 ↗
  • 3. Hong Kong Centre for Health Protection. Men's Health Line - Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/static/80028.html
  • Emberton M, Andriole GL, de la Rosette J, Djavan B, Hoefner K, Vela Navarrete R, Nordling J, Roehrborn C, Schulman C, Teillac P, Tubaro A, Nickel JC. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: a progressive disease of aging men. Urology. 2003 Feb;61(2):267-73. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02371-3. No abstract available. PubMed 12597928 ↗
  • Macey MR, Raynor MC. Medical and Surgical Treatment Modalities for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in the Male Patient Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Review. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2016 Sep;33(3):217-23. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1586142. PubMed 27582609 ↗
  • Blanker MH, Alma HJ, Devji TS, Roelofs M, Steffens MG, van der Worp H. Determining the minimal important differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score and Overactive Bladder Questionnaire: results from an observational cohort study in Dutch primary care. BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 23;9(12):e032795. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032795. PubMed 31874883 ↗

Study documents

  • Informed consent form · Jul 29, 2026

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07759752
Lead sponsor
The University of Hong Kong
Responsible party
LEUNG SHUNG LAI JOHN (Clinical Assistant Professor, The University of Hong Kong) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 12, 2026
Start date
Aug 6, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Aug 5, 2029 (estimated)
Completion
Nov 5, 2029 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 24, 2026

Study contacts

Shung Lai John Leung, MBBS, FRCSEd, FCSHK, FHKAM
Contact
jslleung@hku.hk
+852 2255 4310
Yusra Saleem, BSc
Contact
yusra@hku.hk
Shung Lai John Leung, MBBS, FRCSEd, FCSHK, FHKAM
principal investigator · The University of Hong Kong, Hospital Authority

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion