Surgical treatment of large volume prostates: a matched pair analysis comparing the open, endoscopic (ThuVEP) and robotic approach

Comparative analysis of the long-term efficacy and safety of minimally invasive simple prostatectomy and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (>80 mL)

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive simple prostatectomy (MISP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are appropriate candidates for the large prostate. However, their comparative effectiveness and safety remain unclear. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of MISP and EEP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify eligible studies comparing MISP and EEP. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I and the ROB2.0 assessment tool.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The results of analyzing 13 studies involving 2271 patients showed that EEP had significant lower operative time (MD [CI]: 41.59 [14.62-68.56]), catheterization time (MD [CI]: 4.35 [3.31-5.38]), length of stay (MD [CI]: 2.16 [0.70-3.61]), and Hb decreases (MD [CI]: 0.46 [0.06-0.87]). MISP demonstrated significantly better long-term (MD [CI]: -0.46 [-0.89; -0.03]) and short-term QoL (MD [CI]: -0.38 [-0.66; -0.10]) and short-term Qmax (MD [CI]: 2.04 [0.06-4.03]). Efficacy outcomes were comparable in postoperative IPSS, PVR and PSA between MISP and EEP procedures. No significant differences were observed in resection weight, overall complications, blood transfusions, or urinary incontinence between MISP and EEP.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, EEP and MISP are both effective treatment options for large-volume BPH, providing comparable efficacy outcomes and long-term maintenance. EEP, on the other hand appears to have better perioperative outcomes, but it has a higher rate of short-term postoperative incontinence.

Efficacy and safety of transurethral thulium laser enucleation versus robot-assisted prostatectomy for large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To compare perioperative outcomes between Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and robotic-assisted simple pasta-ectomy (RASP)for large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia(> 80 ml). In August 2023, we undertook a comprehensive search of major global databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, focusing solely on articles written in English. Studies that were merely reviews or protocols without any specific published data were omitted. Furthermore, articles that comprised conference abstracts or content not pertinent to our subject of study were also disregarded. To calculate the inverse variances and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables' mean differences, we employed the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach along with random-effects models. The findings were denoted in the form of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. A p-value less than 0.05 was deemed to indicate statistical significance. Our finalized meta-analysis incorporated six articles, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and five cohort studies. These studies accounted for a total of 1218 patients, 944 of whom underwent Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and 274 who underwent Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP). The pooled analysis from these six papers demonstrated that compared to RASP, HoLEP had a shorter hospital stay, shorter catheterization duration, and a lower blood transfusion rate. Moreover, HoLEP patients exhibited a smaller reduction in postoperative hemoglobin levels. Statistically, there were no significant differences between the two procedures regarding operative time, postoperative PSA, the weight of prostate specimens, IPSS, Qmax, PVR, QoL, and postoperative complications. (HoLEP) and (RASP) are both effective and safe procedures for treating large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia. HoLEP, with its benefits of shorter catheterization and hospitalization duration, lesser decline in postoperative hemoglobin, and reduced blood transfusion needs, stands as a preferred choice for treating extensive prostate enlargement. However, further validation through more high-quality clinical randomized trials is required.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy and laser enucleation of prostate for large benign prostatic hyperplasia

Laser enucleation of the prostate (LEP) and robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) are two main treatment methods for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), but the superiority between these two methods in treating large BPH is currently unclear. This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and the safety of LEP and RASP in treating large BPH. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that compared safety and efficacy outcomes of both LEP and RASP. Review Manager 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis. Six studies with a total of 1235 patients were included in the analysis. Resected adenoma weight was similar in LEP than RASP group. Operative time [mean difference (MD) - 67.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 131.66 to - 4.25; p = 0.04], catheterization time (MD -6.31; 95% CI - 9.44 to - 3.18; p < 0.0001), and length of stay (MD - 2.44; 95% CI - 3.55 to - 1.34; p < 0.0001) were lower in LEP. The International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urinary flow rate, prostate-specific antigen, and post-void residual urine volume were also comparable between two groups. Furthermore, LEP demonstrated lesser hemoglobin decrease (MD - 0.50; 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.05; p = 0.03), lower blood transfusion rate [odd ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.08-0.66; p = 0.006], and lower rate of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ 3 complications (OR 0.435, 95% CI 0.189-0.998; p = 0.049). Finally, there was no significant difference in overall complications between two groups. Current evidence shows that LEP offers favorable perioperative outcomes compared with RASP. However, there was no conclusive evidence that LEP was advantaged in terms of efficacy outcomes.

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate vs Transvesical Single-port Robotic Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostatic Glands

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative outcomes of transvesical single-port robotic simple prostatectomy (SP-RASP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing SP-RASP and HoLEP from 2019 to 2022 with preoperative prostatic volume (PPV) >80 cm3. Percent of prostate adenoma removed (%PAR) was estimated by specimen weight normalized by PPV. Univariate analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. A subgroup analysis with 1:1 matching for PPV was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 50 SP-RASP and 90 HoLEP cases were analyzed. The median (interquartile range) PPV was 169 (128-244)cm3 for SP-RASP and 129 (100-150)cm3 for HoLEP, (P < .01). The median (interquartile range) %PAR was 57(44-68) for SP-RASP vs 51(42-62) for HoLEP (P = .10). Overall, 11(12%) HoLEP and 5(10%) SP-RASP patients experienced complications (P = .51). Same-day discharge occurred in 24(48%) SP-RASP vs 7(8%) HoLEP patients (P < .01). Median foley catheter duration was longer in SP-RASP (6 vs 1 day, P < .01) and trial of void was successful at first attempt in >94% (P = .68). Transient de novo incontinence was reported in 24(28%) HoLEP vs 2(5%) SP-RASP (P < .01). No differences in voiding parameters were observed at latest follow up. Subgroup postmatched analysis revealed analogous findings.

CONCLUSION

SP-RASP and HoLEP have similar favorable perioperative outcomes for management of large prostatic adenomas. SP-RASP may be considered in patients unwilling to accept the risk of transient incontinence and in those with unfavorable urethral access, large bladder stone burden, or diverticula.

Single-port transvesical versus open simple prostatectomy: a perioperative comparative study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the initial perioperative outcomes of single-port transvesical simple prostatectomy (SP RASP) patients to those of open simple prostatectomy (OSP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Perioperative data from 42 consecutive patients with BPH who underwent SP RASP were prospectively reviewed. Similarly, data from forty-three consecutive patients who underwent the standard OSP, were retrospectively collected. Through direct suprapubic bladder access, prostatic enucleation was performed using the prostatic capsule as a landmark. Then a complete vesicourethral mucosal advancement flap was accomplished. OSP was performed according to the standard approach. Demographics, Intra- and perioperative data were analyzed and assessed with a descriptive analysis.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, except for the preoperative median post-void residual volume, which was higher in the OSP group (p = 0.004). The SP RASP group had less intraoperative estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), no need for continuous bladder irrigation (p < 0.001), and less in-hospital opioid use (p < 0.001). Patients in the SP RASP group were discharged on postoperative day zero, compared to a median of 2 days for OSP (p < 0.001). The median Foley catheter duration was 7 days for SP RASP, compared to a median of 10 days for OSP (p < 0.001). SP RASP group had fewer postoperative complications, however, this did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

SP RASP is an alternative approach in treating surgical BPH. It may offer patients less morbidity in comparison to OSP.

Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy versus other treatment modalities for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6500 cases

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend simple prostatectomy or endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) as treatment of choice for bladder prostatic obstruction (BPO) caused by large prostate glands. We aimed to provide a wide-ranging analysis of the currently available evidence, comparing safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) versus open simple prostatectomy (OSP), laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), and laser EEP.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for retrospective and prospective studies comparing RASP to OSP or LSP or laser EEP (HoLEP/ThuLEP). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations were followed to design the search strategies, selection criteria, and evidence report. A meta-analysis evaluated perioperative safety and effectiveness outcomes. The weighted mean difference and risk ratio were used to compare continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for RCT article assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

15 studies, including 6659 patients, were selected for meta-analysis: 13 observational studies, 1 non-randomized prospective study, and 1 randomized controlled trial. RASP was associated with statistically significant longer operative time (OT) and lower postoperative complication rate, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and transfusion rate (TR) compared to OSP. LSP showed longer LOS and lower postoperative SHIM score, with no difference in OT, EBL, and complications. Compared to laser EEP, RASP presented longer LOS and catheterization time and higher TR. ThuLEP presented shorter OT than RASP. No difference were found in functional outcomes between groups both subjectively (IPSS, QoL) and objectively (Qmax, PVR).

CONCLUSION

RASP has become a size-independent treatment for the management of BPO caused by a large prostate gland. It can duplicate the functional outcomes of OSP while offering a better safety profile. When compared to LSP, the latter still stands as a valid lower-cost option, but it requires solid laparoscopic skill sets and therefore it is unlikely to spread on larger scale. When compared to laser EEP, RASP offers a shorter learning curve, but it still suffers from longer catheterization time and LOS.

Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 g

PURPOSE

Efforts are ongoing to treat severe benign prostatic hyperplasia as traditional endoscopic treatment options are often difficult to perform and associated with significant complications. This manuscript highlights our initial experience of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy [RASP] with minimum a year follow-up. We also compared our outcomes with published literature.

METHODS

After an Institution Review Board approval, we gathered data of 50 cases of RASP between Jan 2014 and May 2021. Patients with prostate volume > 100 cc [calculated from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] and prostate biopsy confirmed benign prostate were candidates for RASP. Patients underwent RASP via transperitoneal route either by suprapubic or trans-vesical approach. Preoperative demographics, peri-operative parameters and post-operative parameters such as hospital stay, catheter removal, urinary continence and uroflow were recorded in standard database and presented as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Patients presented with a baseline median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of 23 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 21,25) and a median PSA of 7.7 ng/ml (IQR 6.4,8.7). Median preoperative prostate volume was 167 ml (IQR, 136,198 ml). Median console time was 118 min, and median estimated blood loss was 148 ml (IQR 130, 167 ml). None of our cohort needed intraoperative transfusion, conversion to open surgery or developed any complications. Median time to Foley removal was 10 days (IQR 8,12). Significant drop in the IPSS score and improvement in Qmax was noted over the period of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

RASP is associated with considerable improvements in urinary symptoms. However, comparative studies with endoscopic treatment options of large prostatic adenomas are warranted and ideally include cost analysis of different procedures.

An Outcomes Comparison Between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate, Open Simple Prostatectomy, and Robotic Simple Prostatectomy for Large Gland Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes between Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), open simple prostatectomy (OSP), and robotic simple prostatectomy (RSP) for large prostates (> 80 cc).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 340 patients who underwent HoLEP (n = 209), OSP (n = 66), or RSP (n = 65) at a large academic medical center between January 2013 - September 2021 was performed. Length of stay (LOS), operative time, catheter duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, and 30-day ED visits and readmissions were compared between the three groups. Univariate analyses consisted of ANOVA with Tukey's corrections and Chi-square tests. Linear and multivariate logistic regression was also performed. All tests were two-sided and a p-value <0.05 was pre-determined to be statistically significant. Analyses were performed with SAS v9.4.

RESULTS

HoLEP was found to have the shortest: operative time (1.4 vs 2.7 vs 3.8h), LOS (0.65 vs 4.2 vs 2.6d), and catheter duration (0.38 vs 9.9 vs 11.2d) compared to OSP and RSP, respectively (all P <.0001). HoLEP also had the lowest EBL (66 vs 795 vs 326 mL, P <.0001). HoLEP and RSP had a lower risk of blood transfusion compared to OSP (P <.0001). These associations remained significant on multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSION

HoLEP is a minimally invasive treatment option for large prostates that was found to have shorter operative time, LOS, and catheter duration as well as lower EBL compared to OSP and RSP.

Laser enucleation of the prostate in men with very large glands ≥175 ml: A systematic review

Background

Surgical treatment options for lower urinary tract symptoms can differ according to prostate size. There are few studies on the efficacy and safety of endoscopic enucleation of prostate (EEP) in patients with very large prostates focusing on laser as energy source. In this systematic review, we aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of laser-based EEP on prostate glands ≥150 ml.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted using Web of Science, PubMed-MEDLINE, Wiley Online Library and Cochrane Library databases with the following search terms solely or in combination: "large prostate", "laser enucleation", "laser prostatectomy"by combining PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) terms. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were followed.

Results

We retrieved 6 studies included 375 patients with prostate sizes ≥175 ml treated with laser-based EEP for symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction. Three studies examined Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) outcomes with a prostate volume (PV) >200 ml, one evaluated HoLEP outcomes with a PV of 200–299 and ≥ 300 ml, two studies evaluated HoLEP outcomes with a PV > 175 ml. We observed improvement in postoperative functional outcomes in patients with a PV > 175, >200 and >300 ml. The retreatment rate was 0–1.3% in all studies involving prostate size ≥175 ml. Most of the complications were Clavien-Dindo I (%0–9) and II (%12.7–16.6).

Conclusions

Laser-based EEP is an efficient, safe and feasible procedure even in very large prostates with good functional outcomes, low perioperative complication and retreatment rates.

•

We observed better postoperative functional outcomes in prostates with a volume of ≥175, >200 and >300 ml in the present study.

•

The retreatment rate was 0–1.3% in all studies involving prostate size ≥175 ml.

•

Laser-based- endoscopic enucleation of the prostate is an efficient, safe and feasible procedure even in very large glands.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of transurethral laser versus open prostatectomy for patients with large-sized benign prostatic hyperplasia: A meta-analysis of comparative trials

PURPOSE

The selection of open prostatectomy (OP) over transurethral laser surgery is controversial for large volume prostates. Thus, we aim to compare the efficacy and safety of transurethral laser versus OP, and provide the latest evidence of clinical practice for large-sized benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This meta-analysis used Review Manager V5.3 software and the systematic literature search of Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science datasets was performed for citations published from 2000 to 2020 that compared transurethral laser with OP for the treatment of large BPH. Variables of interest assessing the two techniques included clinical characteristics, and the perioperation-, effectiveness-, and complication-related outcomes.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included twelve studies containing 1,514 patients, with 792 laser and 722 OP. The transurethral laser group was associated with shorter hospital stay and catheterization duration, and less hemoglobin decreased in the perioperative variables. There was no significant difference in the international prostate symptom score, post-void residual urine volume, maximum flow rate, and quality of life score. Transurethral laser group had a significantly lower incidence of blood transfusion than OP group (odds ratio, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.19; p<0.001; I²=8%), and no statistical differences were found with respect to the other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OP and transurethral laser prostatectomy are effective and safe treatments for large prostate adenomas. With these advantages of less blood loss and transfusion, and shorter catheterization time and hospital stay, laser may be a better choice for large BPH.

Thulium laser enucleation of prostate versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy in the treatment of large benign prostatic hyperplasia: head-to-head comparison

OBJECTIVES

To compare thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy (LSP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent surgery for "large" BPH (>80mL) at three Institutions were collected and analyzed. Two institutions performed ThuLEP only; the third institution performed LSP only. Preoperative (indwelling catheter status, prostate volume (PVol), hemoglobin (Hb), Qmax, post-voiding residual volume (PVR), IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5) and perioperative data (operative time, enucleated adenoma, catheterization time, length of stay, Hb-drop, complications) were compared. Functional (Qmax, PVR, %ΔQmax) and patient-reported outcomes (IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5, %ΔIPSS, %ΔQoL) were compared at last follow-up.

RESULTS

80 and 115 patients underwent LSP and ThuLEP, respectively. At baseline, median PVol was 130 versus 120mL, p <0.001; Qmax 9.6 vs. 7.1mL/s, p=0.005; IPSS 21 versus 25, p <0.001. Groups were comparable in terms of intraoperative complications (1 during LSP vs. 3 during ThuLEP) and transfusions (1 per group). Differences in terms of operative time (156 vs. 92 minutes, p <0.001), Hb-drop (-2.5 vs. -0.9g/dL, p <0.001), catheterization time (5 vs. 2 days, p <0.001) and postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 0, p <0.001) favored ThuLEP. At median follow-up of 40 months after LSP versus 30 after ThuLEP (p <0.001), Qmax improved by 226% vs. 205% (p=0.5), IPSS decreased by 88% versus 85% (p=0.9), QoL decreased by 80% with IIEF-5 remaining almost unmodified for both the approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed that LSP and ThuLEP are comparable in relieving from BPO and improving the patient-reported outcomes. Invasiveness of LSP is more significant.

Robot assisted simple prostatectomy versus endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials

Robot assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are two minimally invasive alternatives to simple prostatectomy, which is considered the standard treatment in large prostate glands. It remains unclear which of the two is superior in terms of outcome and complications. To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of robot assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) versus endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and in line with the PRISMA criteria. The database search included clinicaltrials.gov, Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL and Web of Science and was using the PICO criteria. All comparative trials were considered. Risk of bias was assessed with the revised ROBINS-I tool. 760 studies were identified, four of which were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis, reporting on a total of 901 patients with follow-up up to 24 months. Hemoglobin drop (MD[CI]: 0.34 g/dl [0.09; 0.58]), the rate of blood transfusions (OR[CI]: 5.01 [1.60; 15.61]) catheterization time (MD[CI]: 3.26 d [1.30; 5.23]) and length of hospital stay (LoS) (MD[CI]: 1.94 d [1.11; 2.76]) were significantly lower in EEP. No significant differences were seen in operating time and enucleation weight. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of postoperative urinary retention, postoperative transient incontinence and complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification. Functional results were similar, with no significant differences in International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum urinary flow rate at follow-up. Conclusion: Both EEP and RASP offer excellent improvement of symptoms due to prostatic hyperplasia. EEP has lower blood loss, shorter catheterization time and LoS and should be the first choice if available. RASP remains an attractive alternative for extremely large glands, in concomitant diseases or whenever EEP is not available.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Minimally Invasive Simple Prostatectomy and Endoscopic Enucleation of Prostate for Large Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Background: Minimally invasive simple prostatectomy (MISP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are the two most commonly used methods for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), but it remains unclear which of the two is superior. This study aims to perform a pooled analysis to compare efficacy and safety profiles between MISP and EEP.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify eligible studies comparing MISP with EEP. Parameters including efficacy and safety outcomes were compared using Stata 14.0 version.

Results: Eight comparative trials with 1,504 patients were included. Compared to MISP, EEP demonstrated shorter operative time (mean difference [MD] 46.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.92 to 72.82, p = 0.0006), lesser hemoglobin decrease (standardized MD [SMD] 0.59, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95, p = 0.001), lower catheterization time (SMD 4.13, 95% CI 2.16 to 6.10, p < 0.001), and shorter length of stay (SMD 2.38, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.36, p < 0.001). However, overall complications and blood transfusions did not differ between the two groups. Moreover, EEP had better postvoid residual volume (PVR) at 6-month (MD 14.39, 95% CI 11.06 to 17.72, p < 0.001) and comparable 3- and 6-month International Prostate Symptom Score, 3- and 6-month maximum flow rate, 3-month PVR, and 3-month quality of life compared with MISP.

Conclusion: Both MISP and EEP are effective and safe surgical procedures for the treatment of large BPH. EEP appears to have a superior perioperative profile compared to MISP. This should be interpreted with caution due to the significant heterogeneity between studies. Hence, treatment selection should be based on the surgeon's experience and availability.

Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

PURPOSE

To review safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) compared to open simple prostatectomy (OP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed to assess the differences in perioperative course and functional outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and surgical indication. The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Perioperative course and functional outcomes were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD), 95% CI, and p-values. Analyses were two-tailed and the significance was set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

Eight studies were accepted. Meta-analysis showed significantly longer surgical time (MD, 43.72; 95% CI, 30.57-56.88; p<0.00001) with a significantly lower estimated blood loss (MD, -563.20; 95% CI, -739.95 to -386.46; p<0.00001) and shorter postoperative stay (MD, -2.85; 95% CI, -3.72 to -1.99; p<0.00001) in RASP. Catheterization time did not differ (MD, 0.65; 95% CI, -2.17 to 3.48; p=0.65). The risk of blood transfusion was significantly higher in OP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.33; p<0.00001). The risk of recatheterization (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.32-11.93; p=0.47), postoperative urinary infections (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.23-3.51; p=0.87) and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.51; p=0.86) did not differ. At 3-month follow-up, functional outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

RASP demonstrated a better perioperative outcome and equal early functional outcomes as compared to OP. These findings should be balanced against the longer operative time and higher cost of robotic surgery.

The place of robotic-assisted laparoscopy for BPO surgical management in 2021

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robot-assisted laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (RASP) is being used increasingly for the surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Our purpose is to review the main outcomes of RASP for the management of BPO.

RECENT FINDINGS

A computerised bibliographic search of Medline was performed for articles that included detailed results of RASP, published over the past 2 years. Although RASP seems to be associated with better perioperative and functional outcomes, this procedure remains expensive when compared to open or endoscopic surgery. However, considering the enhanced safety of RASP compared to open simple prostatectomy and its favourable learning-curve when compared to endoscopic laser enucleation, RASP seems to be a good and effective option in centres with extended robotic expertise. Single-port robotic surgery appeared to be safe and effective in two preliminary studies. Other studies reported interesting and improved results for the preservation of ejaculatory function.

SUMMARY

Many RASP techniques have been developed, with the common goal of improving the quality of life of patients. Although the cost of RASP is higher than open surgery, the perioperative benefits of the robotic approach make RASP a favourable option in centres with extended robotic expertise.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy and open simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Science databases for studies published through December 2020. Controlled trials on RASP and OSP for large prostates were included. The meta-analysis was conducted with the Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: A total of seven studies with 3,777 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in IPSS (WMD, 0.72; 95%CI: -0.31, 1.76; P = 0.17), QoL (WMD, 0.00; 95%CI: -0.39, 0.39; P > 0.99), Qmax (WMD, 1.88; 95% CI: -1.15, 4.91; P = 0.22), or PVR (WMD, -10.48; 95%CI: -25.13, 4.17; P = 0.16) among patients undergoing RASP and OSP. However, compared with patients who underwent OSP, patients who underwent RASP had a shorter LOS (WMD, -2.83; 95%CI: -3.68, -1.98; P < 0.001), less EBL (WMD, -304.68; 95% CI: -432.91, -176.44; P < 0.001), a shorter CT (WMD, -2.61; 95%CI: -3.94, -1.29; P < 0.001), and fewer overall complications (OR, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.57; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, RASP was associated with a longer OT (WMD, 59.69, 95% CI: 49.40, 69.98; P < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrated that RASP provided similar efficacy to those of OSP in the treatment of large prostate, while maintaining better security. Our findings indicate that RASP is a feasible and effective alternative to OSP.

From open simple to robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for large benign prostate hyperplasia: the time has come

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) has recently been studied as an alternative to open simple prostatectomy or endoscopic treatment options. At present, there is no defined recommendation for a robotic procedure as a standard surgical technique to treat large benign prostate hyperplasia.

METHODS

Several robotic techniques have been described since 2007. Contemporaneously, multiple endoscopic enucleation techniques have been proposed. Nevertheless, open simple prostatectomy still remains a mainstay of therapy. We aimed to evaluate the development of robotic-assisted prostatectomy for large benign prostatic obstruction, thus comparing the technical aspects and clinical outcomes with open and endoscopic enucleation.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy provides significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay but longer operative time compared to open simple prostatectomy. Compared to endoscopic treatments, robotic approaches have a similar perioperative outcome, but cause less urethral trauma or potential bladder neck strictures. Moreover, concomitant bladder pathologies can be treated within the same setting.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy is an effective and safe technique, and can hence be considered to become the preferred first-line therapy to treat patients with obstructive large prostate glands.

Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy vs bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate in large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a two-center 3-year comparison

PURPOSE

To compare surgery outcomes and safety of button bipolar enucleation of the prostate vs laparoscopic simple prostatectomy in patients with large prostates (> 80 g) in a two-center cohort study.

METHODS

All patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement (Prostate volume > 80 cc) undergoing button bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BTUEP) or laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) in two centers were enrolled. Data on clinical history, physical examination, urinary symptoms, uroflowmetry and prostate volume were collected at 0, 1, 3 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Early and long-term complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 296 patients were enrolled. Out of them, 167/296 (56%) performed a LSP and 129/296 (44%) performed a BTUEP. In terms of efficacy both procedures showed durable results at three years with a reintervention rate of 8% in the LSP group and of 5% in the BTUEP group. In terms of safety, BTUEP and LSP presented similar safety profiles with a 9% of transfusion rate and no major complications.

CONCLUSION

LSP and BTUEP are safe and effective in treating large-volume adenomas with durable results at three years when performed in experienced centers.

Nomenclature in thulium laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: it's time to pull the rabbit out of the hat

We performed a narrative review with the focus on laser settings and surgical procedure with thulium laser. Our primary goal was to define the most valid settings of each surgical procedure to overcome the inconsistency about nomenclature of thulium surgery and to ensure comparability of future publications. A literature search of articles on thulium laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was conducted between 2009 and 2019. We proposed a new classification standard for laser settings and associated surgical procedure. Each article was analyzed and categorized as concordant or discordant referring to the new classification. In total, 74 papers were included in this narrative review. Overall, 43% and 42% of included studies reported discordant laser parameters and surgical description, respectively. Most of the studies on vaporization were categorized as discordant because they reported a medium/low laser setting instead of high power. Conversely, 93.3% of studies on enucleation were deemed as discordant for laser setting because they reported high power parameters instead of medium-low power setting. Most of the studies on laser enucleation and vapo/enucleation were considered discordant for surgical procedure since authors did not mention the use of mechanical vs. laser method for enucleation. The current literature lacks a uniform definition and standardization of the terminology of thulium laser settings and surgical techniques to guarantee comparability between different approaches. We found a huge heterogeneity in 10 years of surgery with thulium laser. We proposed a new classification of laser setting and procedural description for categorization of thulium laser surgery for BPH.

Transurethral laser versus open simple prostatectomy for large volume prostates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The benefit of transurethral laser prostatectomy over open simple prostatectomy (OSP) is controversial in aged symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with large volume prostates, and the aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficiency of these two methods. Meta-analysis was applied using the Review Manager V5.3 software and the retrieved randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing transurethral laser prostatectomy with OSP were analyzed for the treatment of large volume prostates from 2000 to 2019 in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EMBASE datasets. Five RCTs assessing transurethral laser prostatectomy versus OSP were considered suitable for this meta-analysis, which included a total of 448 patients, with 232 patients undergoing laser and 216 patients undergoing OSP. Compared with OSP, although transurethral laser prostatectomy required a longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD) 27.49 mins; 95% confidence interval (CI) 16.54-38.44; P < 0.00001) and obtained a less resected prostate weight (WMD - 11.72 g; 95% CI - 21.75 to - 1.70; P = 0.02), patients undergoing laser prostatectomy benefited from significantly less hemoglobin decline (- 0.97 g/dL; 95% CI - 1.31 to - 0.64; P < 0.00001), shorter time of catheterization (WMD - 3.67 days; 95% CI - 5.60 to - 1.75; P = 0.0002), shorter length of hospital stay (WMD - 4.75 days; 95% CI - 6.57 to - 2.93; P < 0.00001), and less blood transfusion (odds ratio 0.10; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35; P = 0.0003). During postoperative follow-up, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in IPSS, QoL, Q_max, and PVR. Both transurethral laser prostatectomy and OSP are safe and effective for large prostates that require prostate resection. Taking into account of less blood loss, shorter catheterization time and hospital stay, and less blood transfusion, transurethral laser prostatectomy may be a better treatment for patients with large prostates.

Minimally invasive simple prostatectomy in the era of laser enucleation for high-volume prostates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of available prospective and retrospective studies comparing the minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) simple prostatectomy (MISP) and laser enucleation of the prostate for treating male lower urinary tract symptoms in high-volume prostates, as laser enucleation of the prostate is the new trend for treating high-volume prostates (>80 mL) but many urologists now prefer MISP.

Methods

A systematic search was done using the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Cochrane databases in June 2019, with research terms including: ‘laser’, ‘laparoscopy’, ‘enucleation’, ‘BPH’, ‘simple prostatectomy’, ‘Millins’, and ‘adenomectomy’. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

Of 38 screened articles, six were analysed and a total of 975 men were included. The average operative time, length of stay and catheterisation time were significantly shorter in the laser enucleation group (P = 0.006, P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). The amount of prostatic tissue removed during surgery was comparable between both the laser enucleation and MISP groups (P = 0.39). The International Prostate Symptom Score, prostate-specific antigen level, maximum urinary flow rate and post-void residual urine volume were also comparable at 3 months. Finally, similar transfusion rates and Clavien–Dindo complication rates were observed (P = 0.08 and P = 0.41, respectively).

Conclusion

This systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis provide a further demonstration of the safety and effectiveness of both laser enucleation and MISP. While laser enucleation had a shorter catheterisation time and hospital stay than MISP, the latter still had unique and specific indications.

Abbreviations: ELEP: eraser laser enucleation of the prostate; HoLEP: holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PVR: post-void residual urine volume; Q_max: maximum urinary flow rate; (L)(MI)(RA)SP: (laparoscopic) (minimally-invasive) (robot-assisted) simple prostatectomy

Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review

Contemporary minimally invasive surgical (MIS) treatment options of patients with male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate glands >80 mL include Holmium Laser Enucleation Prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser VapoEnucleation Prostate (ThuVEP), and Laparoscopic (LSP) or Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP). Implementing new laser technologies is costly, and the steep learning curve of these laser techniques limit their wide range use. This promoted the use of LSP and RASP in centers with readily established laparoscopy or robotic surgery programs. The aim of this study is to review case and comparative series of RASP. We systematically reviewed published data from 2008 to 2020 on RASP and have identified 26 non-comparative and 9 comparative case series. RASP has longer operation time but less time spent in hospital and less blood loss. The outcomes of improvements in symptom score, post-voiding residual urine (PVR), postoperative PSA decline, complications, and cost are similar when compared to open and laser enucleation techniques. These outcomes position RASP as a viable MIS treatment option for patients with male LUTS needing surgical treatment for enlarged prostates. Nevertheless, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multicenter and large sample size are needed to confirm the findings of this systematic review.

Robotic Simple Prostatectomy: Why and How?

Increasingly many studies have presented robotic simple prostatectomy (RSP) as a surgical treatment option for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) weighing 80-100 g or more. In this review, some frequently used RSP techniques are described, along with an analysis of the literature on the efficacy and complications of RSP and differences in treatment results compared with other surgical methods. RSP has the advantage of a short learning curve for surgeons with experience in robotic surgery. Severe complications are rare in patients who undergo RSP, and RSP facilitates the simultaneous treatment of important comorbid diseases such as bladder stones and bladder diverticula. In conclusion, RSP can be recommended as a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for large BPH.

Operative time comparison of aquablation, greenlight PVP, ThuLEP, GreenLEP, and HoLEP

INTRODUCTION

The BPH surgical armamentarium is composed of a rapidly expanding number of technologies and techniques. These include greenlight photovaporization of the prostate (PVP), greenlight enucleation of the prostate (GreenLEP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and, more recently, the aquablation procedure. To the best of our knowledge, no direct comparison in operative time has been performed.

METHODS

Data for this study were pooled from five sources. For aquablation, patient-level data from four studies of the aquablation procedure were provided by the device manufacturer as well as from a high-volume commercial user. PVP, GreenLEP, HoLEP, and ThuLEP were performed by high-volume, experienced experts. Endpoints included total operative time, resection time, and proportion of total operative time for resection. General linear models were used to evaluate the relationship between prostate volume (or other continuous predictors) and procedure time.

RESULTS

Total procedure time was related to prostate size. Except for the small prostate size range (size < 40 cc), at any given prostate volume, procedure time was highest for PVP, intermediate for LEPs, and lowest for Aquablation. The relationship between procedure time and prostate size (i.e., slope of the fitted lines) was 0.16 min/g for aquablation, 0.32 min/g, 0.28 min/g and 0.32 min/g for GreenLEP, HoLEP and ThuLEP, respectively, and 0.63 min/g for PVP.

CONCLUSION

In our analysis of pooled data of multi-surgical techniques and technologies, aquablation provided the lowest operative time across all prostate volumes. PVP had the longest procedure time for prostates > 40 cc.

Feasibility of prostatectomy without prostate biopsy in the era of new imaging technology and minimally invasive techniques

BACKGROUND

Routinely, after receiving prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectum examination, patients with suspected prostate cancer are required to undergo prostate biopsy. However, the ability of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy to detect prostate cancer is limited. Nowadays, a variety of diagnostic methods and more sensitive diagnostic methods, such as multi-parameter prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) can be applied clinically. Furthermore, laparoscopic/robot-assisted prostatectomy is also a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. So maybe it is time to reconsider the necessary to perform prostate biopsy before radical prostatectomy.

AIM

To explore the feasibility of radical prostatectomy without prostate biopsy in the era of new imaging technology and minimally invasive techniques.

METHODS

From June 2014 to November 2018, 11 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy without prostate biopsy were performed at the three tertiary medical centers involved in this study. All patients received prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer was suspected, including six patients with positive ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA PET/CT results. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection were performed for all patients.

RESULTS

All surgeries were accomplished successfully. The mean age was 69 ± 7.7 year, the mean body mass index was 24.7 ± 1.6 kg/m², the range of serum PSA was 4.3 to >1000 ng/mL, and the mean prostate volume was 40.9 ± 18.3 mL. The mean operative time was 96 ± 23.3 min, the mean estimated blood loss was 90 ± 90.9 mL, and the median duration of catheter placement was 14 d. The final pathology confirmed that all specimens were prostate cancer except one case of benign prostatic hyperplasia. No major complications occurred in 90 d postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

The current practice of mandating a prostatic biopsy before prostatectomy should be reconsidered in the era of new imaging technology and minimally invasive techniques. Radical prostatectomy could be carried out without the evidence of malignancy. Large-sample randomized controlled trials are definitely required to confirm the feasibility of this new concept.