Currently, 3 categories of treatment are available for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): (1) medicine, such as ⍺-blockers and finasteride; (2) minimally invasive treatment, such as transurethral microwave thermotherapy and interstitial ablation using either radiofrequency or laser; and (3) surgical therapy. The 1990s have seen an explosion of transurethral technology to treat symptoms caused by bladder outlet obstruction secondary to BPH. Unlike surgical debulking procedures, the minimally invasive therapies attempt to treat patients without general or regional anesthesia, and even ambulatory procedures are performed in the office. Because of the demographics of patients with BPH, it is hoped that these minimally invasive options will relieve symptoms without any surgical complications and the side effects and compliance issues associated with medical therapy. It is important that urologists have a clear understanding of the clinical usefulness of these devices, so that the overall role of such treatment may be determined by science rather than marketing. Clinically, the degree of symptom score, peak flow, and quality-of-life improvement seen with all the minimally invasive techniques are similar. The techniques may differ in their ability to reach the maximum number of responders and achieve an acceptable duration of response, and the need for analgesia/sedation associated with each technique. This study will define the minimally invasive therapies and present the differences in catheter design and technique. The pathologic basis for these therapeutic options and the advantages and disadvantages of each will be discussed. Urologists must decide which therapy can be used in their office practice. The maximum numbers of responders and enhanced durability of the treatment can be achieved based on realistic expectations, proper selection of patients, and complete information on the potential of these devices.