Enel Health®Atlas
Sign in
Enel Health®Atlas
Browse libraries

Not medical advice. The Atlas is not a substitute for a clinician who can examine you.

BPH Procedures & Ejaculation Preservation

TURP, UroLift, Rezum, Aquablation, and Prostate Artery Embolization

Evidence grade 4 of 5, Strong. Read how the Atlas grades evidence.

The written rationale for this grade is still being prepared.

FDA
FDA Cleared/Approved (varies by device)

Reference only. Not medical advice.

What can go wrong

All carry standard procedural risks (bleeding, infection, transient retention, dysuria). TURP additionally risks TUR syndrome (less with bipolar), urethral stricture, and the high retrograde-ejaculation rate. Durability of the ejaculation-sparing options versus TURP is the main open question; some require re-treatment.

This is something to take to a clinician. The Atlas can tell you what is known about bph procedures & ejaculation preservation in general. It cannot tell you what is happening in your body, and the difference matters most for exactly the symptoms that bring people to this page.

Surgical BPH treatment trades urinary relief against sexual side effects, and the central trade is ejaculation. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), still the reference standard, relieves obstruction well but causes retrograde ejaculation in ~65-75% of men by destroying the bladder-neck/prostatic-urethral architecture. A generation of minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) was developed explicitly to preserve antegrade ejaculation: UroLift (prostatic urethral lift, implanted retractors), Rezum (water-vapor/steam thermal ablation), Aquablation (robotic waterjet), and prostate artery embolization (PAE). These newer options generally preserve ejaculation far better but with more modest or less durable flow improvement than TURP.

The newer BPH procedures sell themselves on one promise: keeping your ejaculation.

What people take it for

What it is taken for. Approval, where it exists, covers only some of these.

  • BPH/LUTS refractory to medication
  • Acute or chronic retention
  • Patients prioritizing ejaculatory preservation

How it works

TURP and other ablative resections remove or destroy the periurethral transition-zone tissue AND the bladder-neck closure mechanism, so emission flows backward into the bladder (retrograde ejaculation). UroLift instead mechanically retracts the lateral lobes with permanent implants, leaving the urethra and bladder neck intact, hence ejaculation is preserved. Rezum injects sterile steam that ablates tissue via convective thermal energy, with the ablation zone sparing the ejaculatory structures. Aquablation uses a high-velocity saline jet under ultrasound/robotic mapping to remove tissue without heat, allowing the surgeon to spare the ejaculatory-relevant zone near the verumontanum. PAE shrinks the gland by cutting its arterial supply, performed transarterially without any urethral instrumentation.

What people get wrong

  • Often saidRetrograde ejaculation means infertility

    ActuallyIt can impair natural conception, but sperm can often be retrieved from post-orgasm urine; the bigger day-to-day issue for most men is the 'dry orgasm' sensation, not fertility.

  • Often saidThe newer procedures are strictly better

    ActuallyThey preserve ejaculation but generally deliver smaller or less durable flow gains than TURP; some men need re-treatment. It is a genuine trade-off, not a free lunch.

Who profits, and who pushes back

Nobody is named here yet, because we have not done that work on this entry. Read that as unfinished. Somebody almost certainly sells this, and somebody almost certainly disputes it. Assume both until we have checked.

What we do not know

  • Long-term durability of UroLift/Rezum versus TURP.
  • How much sponsorship shapes the comparative-effectiveness literature.

At a glance

TURP retrograde ejaculation
~65-75%
UroLift ejaculatory preservation
Designed to preserve; trials report no new sustained ejaculatory dysfunction
Rezum
Steam ablation; low ejaculatory dysfunction rates
Aquablation
Heat-free waterjet; ejaculation preservation a stated advantage
PAE
Image-guided, performed by interventional radiology

What this entry does not yet cover

What follows is unfinished work on our side, not a finding about BPH Procedures & Ejaculation Preservation. A short entry is not a safe entry.

  • Timeline. We have not built the dated record of research and regulatory events.
  • Cost and market. We have not documented what it sells for or who sells it.
  • Supply chain. We have not mapped where it is made.
  • Who uses it. We have not documented the user groups.
  • What could change. No forward-looking summary yet.
  • How it compares. We have not set it against the alternatives.
  • Children and teenagers. We have not checked what is known about younger people.
  • Where we land. We have not taken a position on this yet.

Sources

The studies below are named and described, but not linked. You cannot open them from here and check our reading against them, which means this page is our summary of the literature rather than a document you can verify. Weigh it accordingly until the links exist.

The studies that matter

  • Roehrborn et al., L.I.F.T. trial (UroLift)2013

    UroLift improved symptoms with preservation of erectile and ejaculatory function and no new sustained sexual dysfunction

  • McVary et al., Rezum II RCT2016

    Water-vapor therapy improved LUTS and preserved ejaculatory function out to follow-up

  • Gilling et al., WATER trial (Aquablation vs TURP)2018

    Non-inferior symptom relief with lower rates of ejaculatory dysfunction than TURP

  • Pisco et al., PAE series2016

    Symptom improvement with preservation of sexual function in selected patients