ArticleInternational journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association2026
Comparative Analysis of 3-Year Reintervention Rates for Rezum vs. UroLift: A TriNetX Study.
Article in International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Kaplan-Meier Analysis Inconsistencies in a TriNetX Study of Intervention Rates for Rezum vs. Urolift.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
- Editorial Comment on Comparative Analysis of 3-Year Reintervention Rates for Rezum vs. Urolift: A TriNetX Study.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRezum and UroLift are minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), but long-term comparative data remain limited. This study compared 3-year reintervention rates between the two procedures using the TriNetX database.
methodsUsing the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, we identified men aged ≥ 40 years who underwent Rezum or UroLift between January 2018 and December 2020 based on Common Procedural Terminology codes. Patients were followed for 3 years to evaluate reintervention. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression analyses were performed to reduce baseline differences between the groups.
resultsThis study included 3697 patients; 771 underwent Rezum and 2926 underwent UroLift. After PSM, overall 3-year reintervention rates were comparable between the two groups (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.66-1.32). In patients aged ≥ 65 years, Rezum was associated with a lower reintervention rate than UroLift (HR = 0.62, 95% CI; 0.40-0.95). Among patients aged 40-64 years, Rezum showed a higher reintervention rate before matching, but the difference was not significant after PSM (HR = 1.23, 95% CI; 0.73-2.07). Within the Rezum cohort, patients aged 40-64 years had higher reintervention rates than those aged ≥ 65 years (HR = 2.13, 95% CI; 1.07-4.22), whereas no age-related difference was observed in the UroLift cohort.
conclusionsRezum and UroLift demonstrated comparable overall 3-year reintervention rates after matching. Subgroup analyses suggested lower reintervention rates with Rezum in patients aged ≥ 65 years, whereas outcomes were similar between procedures in younger patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.