Lasers versus bipolar technology in the transurethral treatment of benign prostatic enlargement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Transurethral bipolar enucleation using a TUEB loop for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of transurethral enucleation with bipolar system (TUEB) regardless of the prostate size using a specially developed TUEB loop.

METHODS

A total of 251 patients who underwent TUEB were categorized into two groups depending on the prostate volume (PV): small-PV (≤ 80 mL) group, 133 patients; large-PV (> 80 mL) group, 118 patients. Comparisons of background information and treatment outcomes were performed between the groups.

RESULTS

Operation (113.5 vs 166.4 min), enucleation (49.4 vs 68.1 min), and morcellation (11.4 vs 26.4 min) times were longer and hemoglobin decreased significantly (0.84 vs 1.30 g/dL) in the large PV group. However, the enucleation efficiency (enucleated weight per enucleation time; 0.71 vs 0.97 g/min) and prostate-specific antigen reduction rate (24.6% vs 16.1%) were significantly better in the large-PV group, with similar enucleation rates (enucleated weight per transitional zone volume; 82% vs 81%). The International Prostate Symptom Score, uroflowmetry maximum flow rate, and post-void residual urine in both groups improved at 3, 6, and 12 months compared with baseline. No patient underwent blood transfusion. There were no differences in the frequency of postoperative clot retention, urethral stricture, or stress incontinence at 3, 6, and 12 months.

CONCLUSION

TUEB using a TUEB loop resulted in high levels of satisfaction regarding the enucleation efficiency, efficacy, and safety for BPH surgery regardless of the prostate size. TUEB should be considered one of the best treatment options for large BPH that is uncontrollable with medication.

The prospective evaluation of learning curve of bipolar anatomic endoscopic prostate enucleation (AEEP) with Herrmann's vapoenucleation probe

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the learning curve of Bipolar Endoscopic Prostate Enucleation (BIPOLEP) in benign prostate enlargement without a mentorship.

METHODS

The prospective data of 55 patients underwent BIPOLEP surgery by a single surgeon during 3 years were evaluated. The demographic, peri-operative and follow-up data were recorded. Trifecta was defined as a combination of complete enucleation and morcellation within < 90 min and without any conversion to standard TURP. Pentafecta was defined as a combination of Trifecta without postoperative complications or stress urinary incontinence at 3 months. The learning curve was considered to have been overcome when the surgeon obtained Trifecta/Pentafecta in four consecutive patients.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study group was 67.9 ± 6.8 years with mean prostate volume of 102.3 ± 56.4 ml. The mean operation time and enucleation time were 103.5 ± 41.1 and 65.78 ± 22.6 min, respectively. Trifecta and Pentafecta were achieved in 23rd (from 19th to 23rd) and 34th (from 30 to 34th) patients, respectively. Among the seven consecutive patients between Trifecta and Pentafecta, prostate capsule perforation was occurred during the surgery in four patients (26th, 27th and 29th patients). The mean follow-up duration was 16.7 ± 6.4 (3-24 months, range) months. Urethral stricture was observed in four (7. 2%) patients while bladder neck contracture was observed 1 (1.8%) patient. After the 3rd month, no patient reported stress incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Bipolar endoscopic enucleation of prostate is a safe surgical method and has similar and/or short learning curve compared to HOLEP even without a mentorship program.

Transperineal laser ablation as treatment for benign prostatic obstruction: Safety, feasibility and functional outcomes-A pilot study

Background

Standard surgical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) requires anaesthesia and hospitalization. Transperineal laser ablation (TPLA) is a novel minimally invasive treatment for BPO, which has been performed using local anaesthetics and conscious sedation.

Objectives

The aim of this study is to assess safety, feasibility and functional outcomes of TPLA for the treatment of LUTS in men fit also for standard surgery.

Methods

This prospective, multicentre, interventional pilot study included 20 patients. Eligible patients were men ≥40 years of age, with urodynamically proven bladder outlet obstruction, a peak urinary flow of 5-15 mL/s and a prostate volume of 30-120 cc. All subjects underwent Soractelite™ TPLA using the Echolaser® X4 system. Two to four fibres were placed in the prostate, whereafter laser light induced coagulative necrosis. Twelve months of follow-up included uroflowmetry, an ultrasound of the prostate and PROMs (IPSS and IIEF).

Results

Twenty patients were treated with TPLA using local anaesthetics and optional sedation. Sixteen patients were treated in an outpatient setting, using only local anaesthetics in 12 of them; four were treated in the operating room, whereof two under general anaesthesia. No device related adverse events occurred, nor did any grade ≥3 adverse events during follow-up. Post-TPLA, 10 men continued spontaneous voiding, and 10 men developed a urinary retention treated by a temporary indwelling catheter for 15.2 ± 3.5 days. At 12 months, Qmax improved from 9.7 ± 3.5 to 14.9 ± 6.0 (p = 0.015), IPSS improved from 21.3 ± 5.2 to 10.9 ± 5.5 (p < 0.0001), QoL improved from 4.9 ± 0.9 to 1.9 ± 1.1 (p < 0.0001), IIEF-15 total score remained stable and 11/13 patients (85%) preserved antegrade ejaculation.

Conclusions

TPLA is a safe and feasible treatment for men with LUTS due to BPO. TPLA can be performed in an outpatient setting under only local anaesthetics. Functional and quality of life outcomes improved significantly at 12 months, and erectile function remained stable.

The thermal effect of lasers in urology: a review article

Lasers as a technology have a leading role in the modern urological treatment armamentarium. In this article, the application of lasers in different areas of urology is described. The major uses are in urolithiasis, benign prostatic enlargement (BPE), and management of many urological malignancies and other benign pathologies. Lasers have become an established treatment modality in urolithiasis, an acceptable alternative with the least side effect profile in BPE patients, and a novel and promising therapy in many other fields of Urology.

Transurethral versus open enucleation of the prostate in Sweden - a retrospective comparative cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if treatment with transurethral enucleation of the prostate (TUEP) during the learning curve is as efficient and safe in the short term as transvesical open prostate enucleation (OPE), in patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) > 80 ml in a population in Sweden.  Methods: 54 patients with ultrasound verified BPO > 80 ml and indication for surgery underwent TUEP or OPE between 2013 and 2019. Peri- and postoperative outcome variables regarding voiding efficiency and morbidity from 20 OPE at Skåne University Hospital (SUS) and from the first 34 TUEP performed at SUS and Ystad Hospital were retrospectively assembled. Follow-up data from the first 6 postoperative months were collected by chart review.

RESULTS

Intraoperative bleeding during TUEP was less than in OPE (225 ml vs. 1,000 ml). TUEP took longer surgery time than OPE (210 vs. 150 min.). Within 30 days postoperatively, bleeding occurred less often after TUEP (23% vs. 40%), requiring one fourth of the blood transfusions given after OPE. After TUEP, patients had shorter hospitalisation (3 days vs. 7 days) and catheterisation time (3 days vs. 12 days). During the 6-month follow-up period, incontinence and UTI defined as symtomatic significant bacteriuria (urinary culture) were observed as main complications after TUEP and OPE. Functional outcome data availability (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] questionnaire, uroflowmetry, residual urine) were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with TUEP during the learning curve led to less bleeding, shorter hospitalisation- and catheterisation time than treatment with OPE. However, surgery time was shorter with OPE. There were no major differences between the groups concerning mid-term functional outcomes, with the reservation of an inconsistent follow-up.

Thulium laser vaporesection of prostates with volume exceeding 100 cm3 as an alternative to HoLEP and ThuLEP

The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of thulium laser vaporesection of prostates with volume exceeding 100 cm³. In the present prospective study, patients with infra-vesical urinary obstruction due to a prostate with volume exceeding 100 cm³ underwent endoscopic vaporesection using thulium laser. In this procedure, prostate chips were resected without morcellation. The technical aspects of surgery, admission time, post-operative catheter time and post-operative complications were analyzed. Flowmetry was performed combined with prostatic ultrasound in the follow-up. Between March 2010 and November 2018, 156 cases with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH; volume >100 cm³) were treated. The mean patient age was 67.8 years (48.4-86.6 years), and the mean prostatic volume was 137 cm³ (100-436 cm³). The mean length of hospitalization was 1.48 days (1-8 days), and the mean post-operative catheter time was 5.1 (1-17). Three cases (1.9%) required readmission due to hematuria. The mean follow-up time was 31.2 months (standard deviation = 27.7). Urethral stricture was observed in 14 cases (9%), with bulbar urethra being the most frequent finding. Urinary tract infection was observed in 11 cases (7.1%), and urinary incontinence was observed in 5 cases. The mean peak urinary flow at 12 and 24 months was 26.9 ± 12.5 and 23.9 ± 11.7 ml/s, respectively, and the mean urinary flow during the final follow-up at 41 months was 21.6 ml/s. Thulium laser vaporesection is a valid alternative to open prostatectomy, HoLEP and ThuLEP in patients with large BPH. Urinary flow remained elevated throughout the follow-up.

Comparison of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate with Bipolar Plasmakinetic Enucleation of the Prostate: A Randomized, Prospective Controlled Trial at Midterm Follow-Up

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with bipolar plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate (BPEP) in the surgical management of obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) at midterm (minimum 3 years) follow-up. Patients and Methods: Between June 2016 and January 2018, 181 patients who had bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms or refractory retention of urine due to obstructive BPH (prostate 32-128 g) were randomized to undergo either HoLEP or BPEP using the en bloc technique. Patient's age, associated comorbidities, baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR) urine, and quality of life (QoL) scores were comparable in both groups. From each group, 86 patients who completed regular follow-up for 36 months were analyzed. Results: The mean preoperative prostate volume was comparable in both groups (HoLEP group 61.09 ± 28.25 and BPEP group 62.66 ± 27.37 g). The HoLEP group showed a significantly better enucleation time (27.87 ± 13.18 minutes vs 38.37 ± 14.55 minutes), operative time (30.91 ± 14.82 minutes vs 41.63 ± 16.19 minutes), and enucleation efficiency (1.69 ± 0.28 vs 1.28 ± 0.06 g/min), with a lesser drop in hemoglobin (0.46 ± 0.23 vs 0.87 ± 0.26 g/dL). Bladder irrigation time, catheterization time, hospital stay, and sodium drop were comparable in both groups. One patient in the BPEP group needed clot evacuation. Both groups showed a significant reduction in IPSS, improvement in Qmax, reduction in PVR, and improved QoL scores at 3 months, which was maintained till 36 months. At the 3-year follow-up, two patients in each group needed reintervention for bladder neck contracture. Conclusions: HoLEP and BPEP provide comparable safety and efficacy in the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction due to BPH at the immediate and midterm (3-5 years) follow-up. HoLEP has an advantage of being faster with lesser perioperative morbidity.

The Efficacy and Safety of Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate Compared With Bipolar Technologies in Treating Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate compared with bipolar technologies in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. We analyzed several databases such PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently reviewed studies for consistent criteria and extracted relevant data. Reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias and strength of the evidence for the body of the literature. Ten randomized controlled trials including 1,157 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The holmium laser group had favorable perioperative outcomes in this study. The holmium laser group identified shorter catheterization duration and shorter hospital stay duration than the bipolar technologies group. Efficiency outcomes, such as International Prostate Symptom Score, peak urinary flow rate, quality of life, postvoid residual urine volume, and international index of erectile function reported no obvious differences between the holmium laser and bipolar technologies groups at the 6 to 12 months follow-up. Bipolar technologies and holmium laser groups shared equivalent effectiveness and safety in treatments for benign prostate hyperplasia. Holmium lasers identified lower catheter times, shorter hospital stays, and lesser risk of hemorrhage than bipolar technologies.

Comparison of outcomes of holmium laser versus bipolar enucleation of prostates weighing >80 g with bladder outlet obstruction

Transurethral enucleation of the prostate has been increasingly recognized as an effective minimally invasive technique for management of enlarged prostates. We aimed to compare holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation (B-TUEP) of large-volume prostates. A prospectively maintained database in two tertiary referral centers was reviewed for patients with HoLEP and B-TUEP for prostates >80 g. Operative data, perioperative complications, and early postoperative outcomes were compared. The study included 101 patients, 70 who underwent HoLEP and 31 who underwent B-TUEP. The operative enucleation rate (weight of adenoma enucleated in g/min) was higher in HoLEP compared to B-TUEP (P < 0.0001). The operative complication rate, hemoglobin drop, and readmission rate were comparable in both groups (P = 0.13, 0.35, 0.29, 0.59, respectively). The HoLEP arm had a shorter hospital stay and shorter catheterization time (P = 0.001, 0.012). Follow-up data showed a lower International Prostate Symptom Score and serum prostate-specific antigen level in the HoLEP group. The incontinence rate was comparable in both groups. In conclusion, both techniques were effective in managing a high-volume prostate, although HoLEP had a shorter enucleation time, better symptom score, lower postoperative prostate-specific antigen level, shorter catheterization time, and shorter hospital stay compared to B-TUEP.

Composite urinary and sexual outcomes after Rezum: an analysis of predictive factors from an Italian multi-centric study

BACKGROUND

The Rezum system is one of the latest minimally invasive surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent the Rezum treatment in seven different Italian institutions. A successful urinary outcome was defined as: ≥50% improvement in the IPSS <7, improvement in peak flow ≥50% and/or more than 15 ml/s, ≥1-point improvement in the QoL questionnaire and in the absence of perioperative major complications (AUR, transfusion) or postoperative incontinence. A successful sexual outcome was defined as postoperative (latest follow up consultation) antegrade ejaculation or no variation in ejaculatory function and an increase, or stability or max 1 class reduction, in IIEF-5.

RESULTS

262 patients were enrolled with a follow-up period of 11 months (IQR 5-15). No early or late serious adverse events (Clavien III-IV) occurred. Early complications occurred in 39.3% of cases, with 4 cases of clot retention and one case of blood transfusion. Urge incontinence was reported by 6 patients (2.2%). A treatment failure requiring re-intervention occurred in 4 cases (1.5%). The preoperative antegrade ejaculation rate was 56.5%, and after the procedure it increased to 78.2%. The increase of ≥1-point in the QoL was achieved in 92.7% of the cases. Optimal urinary and sexual outcomes were achieved in 52.9% and 87.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, water vapor intraprostatic injections seem to be an effective and safe procedure.

Comparison of holmium laser enucleation with bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: Results of a multicentre study

To assess the efficacy and morbidity of the holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. The study included 60 (55%) and 49 (45%) patients who underwent laser and bipolar enucleation of the prostate respectively. According to the perioperative data, except for length of hospital stay and enucleated prostate weight, all the remaining parameters were similar between the groups. There were significant differences between the preoperative and the postoperative third and 12th month voiding parameters in both groups. In the laser group, the maximum urine flow rate value was better than the bipolar group at the postoperative third and 12th months. However, we did not find any statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the serum prostate-specific antigen level, International Prostate Symptom Score and postvoid residual urine volume at the postoperative third and 12th months. Our results show that both laser and bipolar techniques are effective minimally invasive surgical treatment options for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. When compared to bipolar technique, laser technique provides shorter hospital stay, more prostatic tissue enucleation and better maximum urine flow rate values.

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.

Enucleation vs. Resection: A Matched-pair Analysis of TURP, HoLEP and Bipolar TUEP in Medium-sized Prostates

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), bipolar enucleation of the prostate (bTUEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in medium-sized prostates (50cc).

METHODS

We present a retrospective analysis of 2230 patients treated for lower urinary tract symptoms. We analysed perioperative parameters, short-term clinical outcomes and adverse events in matched-pair cohorts.

RESULTS

Both HoLEP and bTUEP were superior in terms of efficacy compared to TURP (surgery time: 51min and 50min vs. 60min; P < 0.001; tissue retrieval percentage: 71.4% and 70% vs. 50%; P < 0.001) and showed stronger improvement of LUTS (change IPSS: -15 and -14 vs. -10; P = 0.008). Furthermore, urodynamic parameters (Qmax: +15 ml/s and +19 ml/s vs. +12 ml/s; P < 0.001; PVR: -100 ml and -95 ml vs. - 80ml; P < 0.008) were significantly more improved after enucleation than after TURP. All techniques showed an equally low complication rate (6.9% and 6.9% vs. 10.3%; P = 0.743). No relevant difference of clinical outcomes was identified between HoLEP and bTUEP.

CONCLUSION

Both resection and enucleation are efficient and safe procedures in patients with medium-sized prostates (50cc), but irrespective of the technical approach, transurethral enucleation is superior to TURP in terms of perioperative and functional outcomes.

Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of ultrasound-guided transperineal laser ablation for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single institutional experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of ultrasound-guided transperineal laser ablation (TPLA) as a new minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Under local anesthesia and conscious sedation up to two laser fibers for each prostatic lobe were inserted under US-guidance by a percutaneous approach. TPLA was performed using a continuous wave diode laser (SoracteLite-EchoLaserX4) able to generate a light-induced thermal heating and subsequent coagulative necrosis of the prostatic tissue. Patients were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months after TPLA.

RESULTS

Twenty-two consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled (median age 61.9 years). All procedures were well tolerated and no procedural complications were recorded. Median catheterization time was 7 days, while the median hospitalization time was 1 day. Three out of twenty-two patients (13.6%) experienced acute urinary retention and two (9.1%) of them urinary tract infection requiring major antibiotic treatment. At 3, 6, and 12 months, median prostate volume significantly decreased by a - 21.3%, - 29%, and - 41%, respectively. At the same time point, median IPSS was 8 (- 63.6%), 5 (- 74%), and 6 (- 75%), while median QoL score was 1 in all the scheduled timepoints of follow-up. The median postoperative Qmax at 3, 6, and 12 months improved by + 57.8%, + 98%, and + 115.8%, respectively. Ejaculatory function was preserved in 21 out of 22 patients (95.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

TPLA of the prostate appears to be a promising MIST for BPH. Long-term results and comparative studies against standard treatments are warranted before implementations of this technique in the urologist's armamentarium.

Green Light laser enucleation of the prostate with early apical release is safe and effective: single center experience and revision of the literature

BACKGROUND

Green Light laser enucleation of the prostate (GreenLEP) is an endoscopic treatment to treat bladder outlet obstruction in men with large prostate (>100 cc). Herein, we describe our GreenLEP series and describe its safety and efficacy.

METHODS

Between February 2014 and April 2019, 120 patients from a single center underwent en-bloc GreenLEP with early apical release. All procedures were performed with the AMS XPS laser generator (set: 120 W for vaporization and 20 W for coagulation). Morcellation was carried out with the Wolf Piranha morcellator. Data concerning the pre-, intra- and postoperative outcomes were prospectively collected. The follow-up data at 6, 12 months and at the last control were collected.

RESULTS

The median age was 66.0 (IQR: 61.0-71.0) years; 37.5% of the patients were under antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy, 15.0% had indwelling catheter history. The median prostate volume and the baseline PSA value were 98.5ml (IQR 83.0-130.0) and 4.2ng/ml (IQR: 3.2-6.8), respectively. The median operative and lasing time were 65.0 (IQR: 51.0-83.5) and 6.0 (IQR: 6.0-10.0) minutes, respectively. In the post-operative period 1 patient was transfused. The median follow-up was 18.0 (IQR: 12.0-39.5) months. All patients had significant improvement in terms of improvement of uroflowmetry [median from 9ml/sec (IQR 7.8, 11.0) to 20.0 (IQR 18.0, 22.0), p <0.001] and symptoms control [IPSS median score from 26.0ml/sec (IQR 22.0, 28.0) to 7.0 (IQR 6.0, 8.0), p <0.001]) over time. After 12 months 1 patient complained of stress incontinence (1 pad/day) and 1 of "de novo" wet urgency.

CONCLUSIONS

En-bloc GreenLEP with early apical release is a safe and effective procedure even for large volume prostates. It allows us to limit the use of laser energy and shorten the operating times with stable and satisfactory long-term outcomes.

Environmental Safety of the 180-W GreenLight Laser: A Pilot Study On Plume And Irrigating Fluids

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the chemical composition of the surgical smoke and the outflow irrigation fluid produced during a common endourological surgical procedure to treat benign prostatic obstruction (BPO).

METHODS

A prospective study was performed to analyze the surgical smoke generated during photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) using the 180-W GL-XPS GreenLight Laser system. Surgical smoke samples were collected from 5 patients, and irrigation fluid samples were collected from 5 different patients. Qualitative organic compound determination was performed on both types of collected specimens using headspace-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (HS-GC/MS) analysis.

RESULTS

Four organic compounds were identified in the analyses of the smoke samples: tetradecane, hexadecane, 7-methylpentadecane and 2,6-dimethyleptadecane. In the analysis of fluid samples, 16 organic elements were identified. Interestingly, two compounds present in the first group (7-methylpentadecane and 2,6-dimethyleptadecane) were not detected in the fluid samples from the second group. None of the sixteen compounds detected in the fluids were present in all of the samples. Overall, seven of these compounds can be classified as toxic for acute exposure, while 4 others may represent a health hazard.

CONCLUSION

We found that the different types of surgical smoke and irrigation fluids produced during PVP with a GreenLight Laser contain a limited number of organic compounds with a potential inhalation hazard. More studies are needed to understand the potential hazard for the exposed employees.

Pharmacological and interventional treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: An evidence‐based comparative review

Introduction

The recommended treatment for bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) after the failure of behavioral therapy and fluid modification includes pharmacological, minimally invasive interventional, and surgical approaches. Each option has different risk and benefit profiles, and the urologist must be aware of the unique characteristics of each option in order to be able to accurately counsel the patients based on their individual values and preferences. We provide a comparative review of the commonest pharmacological and most widely performed interventional/surgical treatments for BPO, discussing the evidence for the treatment characteristics that are most useful for the practicing urologist.

Methods

A search of the PubMed database was performed for articles reporting on the following treatments for LUTS due to BPO: α‐blockers, 5α‐reductase inhibitors, phosphpdiesterase‐5 inhibitors, prostatic urethral lift (Urolift), convective radiofrequency water vapor thermal therapy (Rezum), Temporary implantable Nitinol Device (iTIND), prostate artery embolization (PAE), transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), Aquablation, and anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP). We performed a narrative review focussing on the following outcomes: efficacy, safety, durability, duration of catheterization, length of stay, re‐treatment rate, efficacy in special situations (enlarged median lobe, prostate size, urinary retention, and anticoagulant use), and sexual adverse events.

Results

AEEP offers the greatest long‐term improvement in maximum flow rate, IPSS, and prostate volume reduction, with lowest re‐treatment rate, followed by PVP, TURP, and Aquablation. Urolift, Rezum, and PAE have similar efficacy for prostate volume up to 80cc, and all are more effective than the pharmacological treatment. Urolift offers the lowest rate of sexual dysfunction, followed by Rezum, and both can be performed as a day case under local anesthesia.

Conclusion

Several treatment options exist to treat voiding LUTS due to BPO. Newer minimally invasive treatments reduce the hospital stay and postoperative complications, whereas AEEP provides the greatest long‐term symptom improvement at the expense of higher morbidity and sexual dysfunction. Men should be counseled regarding all suitable treatment options as some may favor reduced efficacy in association with reduced side effects.

Sexual and ejaculatory function after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate: a single-center experience

Currently available surgical treatments for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) due to Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) are associated with an increased risk of sexual dysfunction. The aim of our study is to compare sexual and ejaculatory function after Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Bipolar Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate (B-TUEP). We performed a retrospective analysis of data prospectively collected from 62 (44.9%) and 76 (55.1%) patients who underwent HoLEP and B-TUEP, respectively. Erectile function and ejaculation characteristics were assessed with the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) domain and the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculatory function (MSHQ-EJ) questionnaires. Our study recorded no change in erectile function and no significant difference in rates of preserved antegrade ejaculation after both surgeries. One month after surgery, rates of physical pain/discomfort and perceived decreased physical pleasure during ejaculation were higher in HoLEP than B-TUEP patients (all p < 0.03). Moreover, HoLEP patients were more bothered by their ejaculatory difficulties than B-TUEP men (p = 0.03). At 3- and 12-months follow-up, all ejaculation-related differences disappeared. In conclusion, both procedures are valid alternatives for BPO treatment as they offer comparable urinary and sexual outcomes in the long term. However, in the first month after surgery, HoLEP patients present with more ejaculatory difficulties.

Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention (UNBLOCS): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) is a technique with suggested advantages over TURP, including reduced complications and hospital stay. We aimed to investigate TURP versus ThuVARP in men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction.

METHODS

In this randomised, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic equivalence trial, men in seven UK hospitals with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of surgery to receive ThuVARP or TURP. Patients were masked until follow-up completion. Centres used their usual TURP procedure (monopolar or bipolar). All trial surgeons underwent training on the ThuVARP technique. Co-primary outcomes were maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12-months post-surgery. Equivalence was defined as a difference of 2·5 points or less for IPSS and 4 mL per s or less for Qmax. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN00788389.

FINDINGS

Between July 23, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 410 men were randomly assigned to ThuVARP or TURP, 205 per study group. TURP was superior for Qmax (mean 23·2 mL per s for TURP and 20·2 mL per s for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means -3·12, 95% CI -5·79 to -0·45). Equivalence was shown for IPSS (mean 6·3 for TURP and 6·4 for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means 0·28, -0·92 to 1·49). Mean hospital stay was 48 h in both study groups. 91 (45%) of 204 patients in the TURP group and 96 (47%) of 203 patients in the ThuVARP group had at least one complication.

INTERPRETATION

TURP and ThuVARP were equivalent for urinary symptom improvement (IPSS) 12-months post-surgery, and TURP was superior for Qmax. Anticipated laser benefits for ThuVARP of reduced hospital stay and complications were not observed.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral enucleation and resection versus bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection for surgically treating large (≥60 g) prostates: a propensity score-matched analysis with a 3-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

There are extremely limited published studies comparing bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of prostate (BP-TURP), bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral enucleation and resection of prostate (BP-TUERP) for enlarged prostates. Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of BP-TUERP and BP-TURP for large (≥60 g) prostates with a 3-year follow-up.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 229 patients according to inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2016. After applying propensity score matching method, preoperative results and three-year follow-up outcomes in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), urinary peek flow rate (Q<inf>max</inf>), postvoid residual urine (PVRU) volume and quality of life (QoL) score were compared.

RESULTS

Finally, within the well-balanced matched cohort, the BP-TUERP was significantly associated with longer mean operating time (OT) (P=0.039), shorter mean catheter time (CT) (P=0.001) and lower mean hemoglobin decrease (P=0.002) with more prostatic tissue removed (P=0.001) than the BP-TURP, but the median hospital stay lengths and the short- and long-term complication rates were similar between the two series. The patients in the BP-TUERP group had better long-term outcomes in IPSS, Q<inf>max</inf> and PVRU volume than these in the BP-TURP group, but not in QoL score.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with large (≥60 g) prostates, BP-TUERP and BP-TURP are safe options, but the former is a more effective choice in long-term follow-up outcomes. BP-TUERP is related to reduced CT and hemoglobin decrease with more removal of prostatic tissue at the expense of longer OT than BP-TURP.

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.

Complications of anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains the 'gold standard' for surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Recently, anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP) using holmium laser, thulium laser and plasma, etc., is extensively applied in clinical practice. However, perioperative complications of AEEP are inevitable in spite of lower incidence compared with TURP. This study reviewed the literature related to the aetiology, prevention and treatment of common complications of AEEP, which would contribute to the diagnosis and treatment of BPO.

Holmium laser technologies versus photoselective greenlight vaporization for patients with benign prostatichyperplasia: a meta-analysis

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of holmium laser technologies (HoL-Ts) and photoselective greenlight vaporization (PVP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and to perform a meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines on PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to August 2019. Functional outcomes, perioperative parameters, and complications were included and analyzed. Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used to perform all analyses. A total of six articles composed of 2014 patients were included in this review. In comparison with PVP, HoL-Ts had a better performance in 1-, 3-, and 6-month Qmax (P = 0.02, but I² = 81%), with less postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) (MD = -33.85, 95% CI -52.13 to -15.57, P = 0.0003) and less total energy used (MD = -31.66, 95% CI -58.99 to -4.33, P = 0.02). Moreover, HoL-Ts had a relatively lower risk of conversion rate (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.60, P = 0.01) associated with enough enucleation and less intraoperative bleeding. Subgroup analysis of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) versus PVP suggested that HoLEP presented better results in 1-, 3-, 6-month and 1-year Qmax with less PVR, less energy consumption, and lower conversion rate. Compared with PVP, HoL-Ts had higher 1-, 3-, and 6-month Qmax, less PVR, and less total energy consumption with a relatively lower risk of conversion rate. In subgroup analyses, HoLEP had shown better results in accordance with all HoL-Ts. Nevertheless, well-designed RCTs including overall functional indicators are required to confirm our findings.

Bipolar endoscopic enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: an ESUT systematic review and cumulative analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a cumulative analysis of the current evidence on the surgical and functional outcomes of bipolar endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (b-EEP) versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (b-TURP).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed, Ovid^®, and Scopus^® according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement (PRISMA Statement). The meta-analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Parameters of interest were surgical and functional outcomes. Weighted mean difference, and odds ratio with 95% confidence interval were calculated for continuous and binary variables, respectively. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Fourteen comparative studies were included. No statistically significant difference in terms of overall baseline characteristics was found. b-EEP had higher amount of resected tissue (p < 0.0001), shorter catheter time (p = 0.006), lower Hb drop (p = 0.03), and shorter length of stay (p < 0.0001). Equally, overall post-operative complications were lower (p = 0.01) as well as short (p = 0.04), and long-term complication rate (p = 0.04). There was higher re-intervention rate in the b-TURP group (p = 0.02) whereas b-EEP group had smaller residual prostate volume (p = 0.03), and lower post-operative PSA values (p < 0.00001). At long term, b-EEP presented lower IPSS (p = 0.04), higher Q_max (p = 0.002), and lower PVR (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

b-EEP is an effective and safe surgical treatment for BPO. This procedure might offer several advantages over standard b-TURP, including the resection of a larger amount of tissue within the same operative time, shorter hospitalization, lower risk of complications, and lower re-intervention rate. This was submitted to PROSPERO registry: CRD42019126748.