A randomized controlled trial comparing high and medium power settings for holmium laser enucleation of prostate

Advances in lasers for the minimally invasive treatment of upper and lower urinary tract conditions: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Technological advancements in laser lithotripsy are expanding into numerous fields of urology, like ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and benign and malignant soft-tissue treatments. Since the amount of research regarding lasers in urology has grown exponentially, we present a systematic review of the most recent and relevant advances encompassing all lasers used in urological endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

We performed a literature search using PubMed (May 2023) to obtain information about lasers for urological purposes. We included only recent data from published articles between 2021 and 2023 or articles ahead of print.

RESULTS

Lasers are widely used in lithotripsy for ureteric, renal, and bladder stones, benign prostate surgery, and bladder and upper tract tumor ablation. While the holmium (Ho:YAG) laser is still predominant, there seems to be more emphasis on pulse modulation and newer lasers such as thulium fiber laser (TFL) and pulsed Tm:YAG laser.

CONCLUSION

The use of lasers and related technological innovations have shown increasing versatility, and over time have proven to be invaluable in the management of stone lithotripsy, treatment of benign and malignant prostate diseases, and urothelial tumors. Laser endoscopic treatment is heavily based on technological nuances, and it is essential to know at least the basics of these technologies. Ultimately the choice of laser used depends on its availability, cost, surgeon experience and expertise.

The Impact of Laser Energy on Functional Outcome Following Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of total laser energy applied, as well as enucleation efficiency on short-term functional outcomes for patients treated for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 1593 consecutive patients who underwent HoLEP for LUTS due to benign prostate obstruction in a tertiary care center between January 2018 and January 2021 was performed. Perioperative parameters and short-term functional outcome were evaluated. Spearman's rank correlation and linear regression analysis was applied to identify the relationship between total laser energy applied or enucleation efficiency and functional outcome (P < .05).

RESULTS

Median weight of enucleated tissue was 65g, median tissue retrieval percentage was 72.2% and median surgery speed was 0.8g/min. Median laser energy applied was 48.8 kJ, median enucleation efficiency was 1.4g/kJ. No significant correlation between the total laser energy and postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), peak urinary flow (Qmax) or postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) was found (P-range: .473-.969). Likewise, no correlation was found between enucleation efficiency and postoperative IPSS, Qmax, and PVR (P-range: .080-.932). Perioperative improvement of functional outcome (delta IPSS, delta Qmax, and delta PVR) did not correlate with total laser energy applied (P-range: .211-.785) or with enucleation efficiency (P-range: .118-.543). Those results were confirmed in linear regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study reveal that functional outcome following HoLEP are not dependant on the amount of laser energy applied or enucleation efficiency. Our results should support the increased use of HoLEP as surgical treatment option for LUTS due to BPH.

Reoperation after surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review

Context

Surgical treatment is important for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) management, but there are few reviews of the risks of reoperation.

Objective

To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the reoperation rates of surgical treatment for LUTS in accordance with current recommendations and guidelines.

Evidence acquisition

Eligible studies published up to July 2023, were searched for in the PubMed® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA) databases. STATA® (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled incidences (PIs) of reoperation and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Evidence synthesis

A total of 119 studies with 130,106 patients were included. The reoperation rate of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 4.0%, 5.0%, 6.0%, and 7.7%, respectively. The reoperation rate of plasma kinetic loop resection of the prostate (PKRP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.5%, 3.6%, 5.7%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.4%, 3.3%, 5.4%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.3%, 4.1%, 6.7%, and 7.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of surgery with AquaBeam® at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.6%, 3.1%, 3.0%, and 4.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 12.2%, 20.0%, 26.4%, and 23.8%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 9.9%, 19.9%, 23.3%, and 31.2%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) at 5 years was 13.4%. The reoperation rate of open prostatectomy (OP) at 1 and 5 years was 1.3% and 4.4%, respectively. The reoperation rate of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) at 1, 2, and 5 years was 3.7%, 7.7%, and 8.4%, respectively.

Conclusion

Our results summarized the reoperation rates of 10 surgical procedures over follow-up durations of 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, which could provide reference for urologists and LUTS patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023445780.

Efficacy and safety of low power holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: A prospective short- and medium-term single-blind randomized trial

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of mid-term follow-up in low-power (LP) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) compared with high-power (HP) surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study was conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. Ninety male patients >50 years who underwent HoLEP for BPH were randomly assigned to HP (80 W/2 J/40 Hz) and LP (24 W/2 J/12 Hz) groups. The primary endpoint was the total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) six months after surgery. The secondary endpoints were perioperative results and postoperative outcomes at two weeks, three and six months after the surgery, including Clavien-Dindo complication classification.

RESULTS

At six months after HoLEP, 41 and 42 patients were followed up in the HP and LP groups, respectively. There was no difference in the preoperative characteristics between the two groups. The prostate volumes were 67.1±23.7 mL for the HP group and 64.3±25.7 mL for the LP group (p=0.592), respectively. Although the total operative time was significantly longer by 13.1 minutes in the LP group (47.8±20.3 min vs. 60.9±23.3 min, p=0.006), the total delivered energy was significantly lower, which was only about 68% of the HP group (58.2±23.9 kJ vs. 39.9±13.2 kJ, p<0.001). Surgical outcomes significantly improved postoperatively in both groups compared to baseline, except for storage symptoms. Improvement in IPSS storage subscore was observed from the immediate postoperative 2 weeks in the LP group (8.1±3.1 to 6.9±3.8, p<0.001), whereas there was no significant recovery in the HP group (8.0±3.2 to 7.7±3.4, p=0.842). In the 6-month follow, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the IPSS total score (5.9±5.6 vs. 7.3±5.3, p=0.260) as well as IPSS storage subscore. In addition, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications, including bleeding or urinary incontinence, between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The HoLEP procedure performed using an LP laser device resulted in lower total delivered energy, faster recovery, and significantly improved surgical outcomes up to mid-term follow-up. There was no difference in efficiency or safety between the HP device system.

V.I.P. Score: A Comprehensive Grading System to Predict Difficulty of HoLEP Procedure for Small-to-Moderate Sized Prostate (<120 ml)

OBJECTIVES

To develop a comprehensive scoring system in addition to the conventionally used prostatic volume (PV), for predicting the difficulty of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) that may arise with small-to-moderate sized prostate.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 151 consecutive patients who underwent HoLEP and had a PV less than 120 ml. Based on previous literature, a difficult procedure was defined as a prolonged operative time (OT>90 min) in 88 cases, while the control group (OT≤90 min) consisted of 63 patients. The clinical data, including age, body mass index, PV, intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP), prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate specific antigen density, urinary tract infection, microscopic hematuria, prior biopsy, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, history of acute urinary retention, catheter dependency and use of antiplatelet / anticoagulation drugs or 5-alpha reductase inhibitor were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis revealed significant differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis identified three main independent predictors for difficulty, including volume (V) (60-90 ml OR=9.812, P<0.001) (≥90 ml OR=18.173, P=0.01), IPP (I) (OR=3.157, P=0.018), and PSA (P) (≥4 ng/ml OR=16.738, P<0.001). Therefore, a V.I.P. score was developed based on the regression model and ranged from 0 to 7 points. The area under the curve showed preferable predictive ability of the V.I.P. score compared to PV (0.906 versus 0.869).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a V.I.P. score that can accurately predict the difficulty of the HoLEP procedure for PV less than 120 ml in order to optimize clinical outcomes.

Peri- and post-operative outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP): a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate and assess outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA checklist. We searched the Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases. We included only randomised-controlled trials (RCT) comparing modifications of EEPs and assessed the risk of bias (RoB).

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included in the study. Overall, 1266 patients were treated with Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and 80 patients with thulium laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP). The operative time during pulse shape-modified HoLEP was shorter when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (MD 18.08 min, 95% CI 8.11-28.05 min, p = 0.0004). The decrease in haemoglobin was significantly lower for two-lobe HoLEP when compared to three-lobe HoLEP (MD 0.16 g/dl, 95% CI 0.22-0.1 g/dl, p < 0.00001). Virtual Basket (VB) HoLEP showed a smaller haemoglobin decrease when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (1.12 ± 1.78 vs. 2.54 ± 1.23 g/dl, p = 0.03). When directly comparing one- vs. two- vs. three-lobe HoLEP, surgical time (p < 0.001) and enucleation efficiency (p = 0.006) were significantly different and favouring one- and two-lobe HoLEP in the study with the largest patient population included. No significant differences for complications were observed; however, Clavien-Dindo IVa events were reported for two patients.

CONCLUSION

All variations of EEP improve symptoms and functional parameters with a low incidence of high-grade complications. One- and two-lobe approaches and pulse shape-modified HoLEP seem to be beneficial in terms of operative time and blood loss.

Efficiency and clinical outcomes of Moses technology for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: An evidence-based analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the safety and clinical efficacy of Moses laser enucleation of the prostate (MoLEP) with those of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang databases, and SinoMed databases. The retrieval period was from the establishment of the database to March 2022. Stata17.0 was used for calculations and statistical analyses.

RESULTS

This study included 12 articles comprising 1160 patients for meta-analysis. Compared with those of the HoLEP group, the hemostasis time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -4.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-6.47, -2.84], p < 0.001), enucleation time (WMD = -7.23, 95% CI [-10.67, -3.79], p < 0.001), operative time (WMD = -15.02, 95% CI [-20.50, -9.53], p< 0.001), length of hospital stay (WMD = -15.02, 95% CI [-20.50, -9.53], p< 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -11.19, 95% CI [-12.94, -9.44], p< 0.001), and total postoperative complications rate (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.32, 0.81], p = 0.004) were shorter in the MoLEP group. Postoperative quality of life (WMD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.00, 0.59], p = 0.047) was lower in the HoLEP group, and there were no statistically significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score, postoperative maximum urinary flow rate, and postoperative residual urine (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

MoLEP has more advantages than HoLEP in terms of safety, shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer complications. However, this conclusion needs to be verified with a larger sample size, longer follow-up time, and multicenter randomized controlled trial data.

Experimental ex-vivo performance study comparing a novel, pulsed thulium solid-state laser, chopped thulium fibre laser, low and high-power holmium:YAG laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the enucleation performances of four different types of laser devices in an ex-vivo experiment: a novel, pulsed Tm:YAG solid-state laser evaluation model (p-Tm:YAG), chopped thulium fibre laser (TFL), low-power Ho:YAG laser (LP-Ho:YAG), and a high-power Ho:YAG laser (HP-Ho:YAG).

Methods

Our primary aim was to endoscopically separate the fascial layers of a porcine belly using laser fibres within a time period of 60 s. The size of a “tissue pocket” was assessed numerically. The enucleation characteristics reflecting the surgeon’s experience were evaluated via the NASA Task Load Index (TLX) questionnaire and a questionnaire based on Likert scale.

Results

HP-Ho:YAG achieved with the available laser settings the largest overall “tissue pocket” (31.5 cm²) followed by p-Tm:YAG (15 cm²), TFL (12 cm²), and LP-Ho:YAG (6 cm²). The coagulation performances of p-Tm:YAG and TFL were rated the best. In the performance evaluation by the Likert questionnaire, HP-Ho:YAG (average score of 4.06) was rated highest, followed by p-Tm:YAG (3.94), TFL (3.38), and LP-Ho:YAG (3.25). The evaluation of the NASA-TLX performance questionnaire revealed average scores for HP-Ho:YAG, LP-Ho:YAG, TFL and p-Tm:YAG of 4.38, 4.09, 3.92 and 3.90, respectively.

Conclusion

We are the first to compare different laser devices and settings in an ex-vivo study. We found that the surgeons were most satisfied with the HP-Ho:YAG laser device, followed by the p-Tm:YAG. These findings could be highly relevant for future research and for the practical utilisation of laser systems in endourology.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-021-03825-z.