Update on the current evidence for Tm:YAG vapoenucleation of the prostate 2014

What to expect from the novel pulsed thulium:YAG laser? A systematic review of endourological applications

INTRODUCTION

Several preclinical studies about a novel pulsed-thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (p-Tm:YAG) device have been published, demonstrating its possible clinical relevance.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the reality and expectations for this new p-Tm:YAG technology. A PubMed, Scopus and Embase search were performed. All relevant studies and data identified in the bibliographic search were selected, categorized, and summarized.

RESULTS

Tm:YAG is a solid state diode-pumped laser that emits at a wavelength of 2013 nm, in the infrared spectrum. Despite being close to the Ho:YAG emission wavelength (2120 nm), Tm:YAG is much closer to the water absorption peak and has higher absorption coefficient in liquid water. At present, there very few evaluations of the commercially available p-Tm:YAG devices. There is a lack of information on how the technical aspects, functionality and pulse mechanism can be maximized for clinical utility. Available preclinical studies suggest that p-Tm:YAG laser may potentially increase the ablated stone weight as compared to Ho:YAG under specific condition and similar laser parameters, showing lower retropulsion as well. Regarding laser safety, a preclinical study observed similar absolute temperature and cumulative equivalent minutes at 43° C as compared to Ho:YAG. Finally, laser-associated soft-tissue damage was assessed at histological level, showing similar extent of alterations due to coagulation and necrosis when compared with the other clinically relevant lasers.

CONCLUSIONS

The p-Tm:YAG appears to be a potential alternative to the Ho:YAG and TFL according to these preliminary laboratory data. Due to its novelty, further studies are needed to broaden our understanding of its functioning and clinical applicability.

Lasers in Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate-Do We Really Need Them

The acronym EEP, coding for transurethral Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate, was introduced in 2016 by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines panel on management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Since then, a laser-based treatment, Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP), and the current-based treatment of bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP) are equally appreciated as valuable options for the management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This was mainly inspired by the results of two meta-analyses on randomized controlled trials, comparing open prostatectomy with either Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) or bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP). Prior to that, HoLEP was embraced as the only valid option for transurethral enucleation, although evidence for equivalence existed as early as 2006, but was not recognized due to a plethora of acronyms for bipolar energy-based treatments and practiced HoLEP-centrism. On the other hand, the academic discourse focused on different (other) laser approaches that came up, led by Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) Vapoenucleation (ThuVEP) in 2009 and, finally, transurethral anatomical enucleation with Tm:YAG support (thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuLEP) in 2010. Initially, the discourse on lasers focused on the different properties of lasers rather than technique or surgical anatomy, respectively. In and after 2016, the discussion ultimately moved towards surgical technique and accepting anatomical preparation as the common of all EEP techniques (AEEP). Since then, the unspoken question has been raised, whether lasers are still necessary to perform EEP in light of existing evidence, given the total cost of ownership (TCO) for these generators. This article weighs the current evidence and comes to the conclusion that no evidence of superiority of one modality over another exists with regard to any endpoint. Therefore, in the sense of critical importance, AEEP can be safely and effectively performed without laser technologies and without compromise.

Thulium-Holmium:YAG Duo Laser in Conservative Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer Treatment: 13 Years Experience from a Tertiary National Referral Center

Introduction and Objectives: To evaluate ablative safety and efficacy of thulium-holmium:YAG (TL-HL:YAG) duo laser in renal conserving retrograde intrarenal surgery (RC-RIRS) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 178 consecutive patients referred for consideration of RC-RIRS UTUC-eLA (endoscopic laser ablation) in a tertiary center (January 2005 to December 2018). Key data were recorded using a standardized study proforma. Results: After endodiagnostic procedure, 42 declined rigorous endosurveillance protocol and went elsewhere for alternative treatment, leaving 136 patients, of whom 35 patients dropped out (25.7%) after undergoing primary radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) (unsuitable for renal preservation). This was left with 101 candidates who continued UTUC conservative management (intention-to-treat [ITT] population). Mean follow-up (FU) for these 101 patients was 28.7 months. At last FU (range 3-144 months), 70 patients (69.3%) were recurrence free, 22 (21.8%) had endoscopically treated recurrences, and a further 9 (8.9%) had undergone RNU. In the ITT population, kidney-preserving rate was 91%, whereas in imperative indications, it was 87.5%. Clavien-Dindo grade I complications only (self-limiting hematuria) were reported in 10%. Conclusions: Over a 13-year period, RC-RIRS UTUC treatment with the TL-HL:YAG duo laser was safe and oncologically noninferior to alternative combination laser energy technologies used for this indication.

Feasibility of en bloc thulium laser enucleation of the prostate in a large case series. Are results enhanced by experience?

Objective

To provide the first large single-operator case series of patients who undergo “en bloc” thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and to demonstrate an improvement in enucleation efficacy with experience.

Methods

We prospectively evaluated a cohort of patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who underwent “en bloc” ThuLEP between May 2015 and November 2017. Association between dependent variables (delivered energy and operating time) and independent variables (adenoma volume and experience) were estimated with regression analysis. The experience was calculated as the time interval between the date of the first operation of the series and the date of the operation being considered.

Results

A total of 100 patients were registered for the study. Median operative time was 56.5 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 40–85 min). Median enucleation time was 17.4 min (IQR: 15–21.5 min). Median enucleation index (enucleation time per adenoma gram) was 0.3 min/g (0.2–0.3 min/g). The overall operative time is not influenced by experience, but we registered a significant trend towards a reduction in the total amount of energy delivered energy normalized per adenoma gram (p = 0.0148).

Conclusion

We believe that further attention is needed for these new “en bloc” prostatic enucleation techniques, which can facilitate some surgical steps, leading to a widespread use of laser technology for BPH surgical treatment.

Thulium Laser Treatment of Upper Urinary Tract Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ureteroscopic thulium laser (TL) treatment of upper urinary tract carcinoma (UTUC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-two consecutive patients underwent conservative TL treatment for UTUC at two referral institutions. All patients underwent preliminary biopsy and then laser vaporization. A 272 μm and 365 μm laser fibers were used with a flexible and semirigid scope, respectively. Ablation was carried out with a 10 to 20 W power.

RESULTS

Mean age at surgery was 68 years (SD 10.7). Mean tumor size was 14.3 mm (range 2-30 mm). Preliminary biopsy revealed the presence of low-grade disease in 29 (69.1%) patients, high-grade disease in 4 (9.5%) and 1 carcinoma in situ 1 (2.4%), whereas it was not conclusive in 8 (19%) cases. Final stage was pTa and pTis in 41 (97.6%) and 1 (2.4%) patients, respectively. Thirty eight percent (16) experienced Clavien-Dindo grade I complication, 47.6% (20) grade II, and 2.4% (1) grade III. Five (12%) patients underwent a second-look procedure due to residual disease. Eight (19%) patients experienced clinical recurrence. The median estimated recurrence-free survival was 44 months (SE 3.68). Four patients (9.5%) underwent a nephroureterectomy. Final pathological stage was pTis, pT3 high grade, pTa low grade, and pT0. Median follow-up was 26.3 months (range 2-54 months), and no progression or upstaging of disease occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

TL management of UTUC is a safe and efficacious conservative treatment. Our experience shows optimal vaporization and hemostatic control in the absence of major complications.

Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Larger than 100 ml: Simple Open Enucleation Versus Transurethral Laser Prostatectomy

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common causes of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in aging men. Over the age of 60, more than a half of men have BPH and/or bothersome LUTS. Contemporary guidelines advocate surgery as the standard of care for symptomatic BPH after failure of medical therapy, where the choice of the appropriate surgical procedure depends on the prostate size. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and simple open prostatectomy (OP) have been considered for decades the reference-standard techniques for men with prostate smaller and larger than 80 ml, respectively. However, both procedures are potentially associated with considerable perioperative morbidity which prompted the introduction of a variety of minimally invasive surgical techniques with comparable long-term outcomes compared to TURP and OP. Nevertheless, the management of prostates larger than 100 ml remains a clinical challenge. Transurethral anatomical enucleation of the prostate utilizing different laser energy represents an excellent alternative concept in transurethral BPH surgery. These procedures gained popularity and demonstrated similar outcomes to OP with the advantages of favorable morbidity profiles and shorter catheter time and hospital stay. Despite the fact that OP remains a viable treatment option for patients with bothersome LUTS secondary to very large prostates, this procedure has been to a large extent replaced by these emerging enucleation techniques. Given the advent of surgical alternatives, the current review presents an evidence-based comparison of the efficacy and safety profile of the currently available transurethral laser techniques with the standard OP for the management of BPH due to adenomas larger than 100 ml.

Outcomes following Thulium vapoenucleation of large prostates

INTRODUCTION

Thulium laser VapoEnucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) is an evolving surgical technique for BPH. Most studies have focused on outcomes in small to médium sized prostates and have originated from Europe and Asia. We sought to describe our experience with ThuVEP for very large prostates in a North American cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From December 2010 to October 2014, 25 men underwent Thu-VEP using the CyberTM® (Quantastem, Italy) thulium laser, all with prostate volume >75mL. Data collected included patient demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative parameters, complications, and post-operative outcomes including maximum flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual (PVR), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and quality of life score (QoL) in one year of follow-up. Statistical analysis was done using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean age was 70±9 years and prostate size was 163±62g. Most patients (84%) were in retention and 10 (40%) patients were on anticoagulation. Seven (28%) patients went home the day of surgery (mean hospital stay: 1.2±1.2d). There were 2 intraoperative complications (8%), both cystotomies related to morcellation. Nine patients (36%) experienced a complication, all within 30 days. There were no Clavien III complications. Significant improvements were seen in Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and QoL score at each time interval to 12-months following surgery (all p<0.05). Of 21 patients initially in retention, all were voiding at last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that ThuVEP is an effective treatment for BPH in patients with large prostates with sustained results for one year.

Long-term outcome following thulium vaporesection of the prostate

BACKGROUND

The continuous wave 2-μm Thulium Laser has been introduced as potential technology with both high efficiency and safe practice; although little data have been shown regarding the long-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the long-term outcomes after thulium vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVaRP).

METHODS

ThuVaRP was performed using the continuous wave, 2-μm Thulium: YAG laser at 70 W. The perioperative and post-operative follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

The average age at surgery was 71.5 (range 55-94 years). The median prostate size was 60.1 g (range 36.3-109.8 g). A median operation time was noted at 44.8 ± 6.5 minutes, while the median catheterization time was 3.5 ± 0.5 days. In regards to hospital stay, most patients had an average duration of 5.5 ± 1.5 days. Minor complications requiring non-interventional treatment happened in 237 (36.24%) of 654 patients, while major complications requiring re-interventions occurred in one patient (0.15%). During a 60-month follow-up, bladder neck fibrosis occurred in 1.22% of the patients. A BPH recurrence happened in 17 (2.60%) patients, of which 14 patients (2.14%) received a second surgery. In comparison to the pre-operative baseline, the patients Qmax, PVR volume, IPSS, and Qol scores all improved significantly (P < 0.01) at time of discharge. This continued into the post-operative follow-up visits (3-6-12-18-14-26-48-60 months).

CONCLUSIONS

ThuVaRP is both an effective and safe treatment procedure for symptomatic BPO (with a low occurrence of complications). Lasers Surg. Med. 48:505-510, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.