The role of the bipolar plasmakinetic TURP over 100 g prostate in the elderly patients

A clinical trial comparing BiVap (Richard Wolf®) saline vaporization of the prostate vs. TwisterTM Diode Laser System in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction between prostate volume 90 to 150 ml

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and postoperative outcomes of the BiVap and Twister systems with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) in prostate volüm between 90-150 ml.

METHODS

In total, we included 131 patients treated with BiVap system (n = 68) and Twister system (n = 63). Postoperative complications including urinary tract infection, transient hematuria, severe dysuria and fever >38° C, urinary incontinence and urethral stricture were also noted. All patients were evaluated at the postoperative 1st, 3rd, 6th and 12th month and preoperative and postoperative values of IPSS score, QoL score, total PSA, IIEF 15, PVR, Qmax and Qave were compared.

RESULTS

Preoperative demographic characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. There was observed significant improvement for IPSS, Qmax, Qave, PVR, and QoL score by the postoperative first month compared to the preoperative values in both groups. Maximum improvement in the IPSS, Qmax, Qave, QoL score and PVR were achieved at postoperative 6, 3, 12, 3 and 12th months respectively in group 1. In group 2 maximum improvement in the same parameters were achieved at postoperative 6, 3, 6, 6 and 12th months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BiVap and Twister systems are safe, effective, and useful technique, which can be used in the surgical treatment of BPO between 90-150 ml.

Bipolar vaporization of the prostate may cause higher complication rates compared to bipolar loop resection: a randomized prospective trial

INTRODUCTION

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) by resection loop or vaporization button is becoming a standard of care due to its better safety profile (less bleeding and less incidence of TUR syndrome). However, there are published data showing bipolar vaporization may be associated with increased late complications. In this study, we compared results of bipolar TURP using the resection loop versus vaporization button for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) to determine the relative safety profile.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2013 and March 2014, 89 patients with BPH were randomized to surgical intervention either by Olympus (Gyrus) Bipolar loop TURP or Olympus (Gyrus) Bipolar button vaporization. Inclusion criteria were; BPH with Q-max < 10 ml/s, IPSS  > 18 and prostate volume > 40 g. All patients were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3 and 9 months. Evaluation included IPSS, uroflowmetry, prostate volume by ultrasound. Clavien complications and operative time were recorded. Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) version 17 software.

RESULTS

44 patients were included in bipolar TURP and 45 patients in vaporization arm. Preoperative mean prostate volume (59 g versus 58 g, p = 0.52) and mean IPSS (19 versus 20, p = 0.38) were equivalent in both groups. Vaporization was associated with a significant increase in operative time (mean of 81 ± 15 min range 40-110 versus 55 ± 10 min range 30-70 min, p < 0.001), less blood loss (0.8% versus 2.0% drop in hemoglobin, p < 0.001) but increased postoperative urinary frequency (80% versus 50%, p < 0.001), hematuria with clots up to 4 weeks post surgery (20% versus 2%, p < 0.001) and postoperative urethral stricture (11% versus 0%, p < 0.001). Both techniques improved urine flow with Q-max (17 ml/s versus 18 ml/s p = 0.22). Prostate volume (32 g versus 31 g, p = 0.31) and IPSS (6 versus 5, p = 0.22), were comparable in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Bipolar vaporization of the prostate, despite being a technically robust, speedy and with less intraoperative bleeding, appears to be associated with increased postoperative irritative symptoms, increased late-onset postoperative bleeding and high urethral stricture rates.

The clinical application of combination suprapubic prostatectomy with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)

Objective:

To investigate the safety and efficacy of the combination of suprapubic prostatectomy with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of two methods of treatment with 60 cases of a large volume BPH (>100 g) from January 2011 to 2017; the methods were suprapubic prostatectomy and suprapubic prostatectomy combination with TURP, in which the single open group comprised 30 cases, treated using the former method, and the combined open group comprised the other 30 cases, treated using the latter method. In the combined open group, the residual prostate gland was removed by TURP. We compared both the groups of patients using age, prostate volume, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), maximum flow rate, residual urine, operation time, hospitalization time, postoperative washing time, blood transfusion rate, and decreased amount of intraoperative hemoglobin in operation, and compared the preoperative and postoperative IPSS, maximum flow rate, and residual urine volume.

Results:

There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, prostate volume, IPSS, PSA, maximum flow rate, residual urine, and other clinical data ( P > 0.05); the single group operation time, postoperative bladder irrigation time, hospitalization time, blood transfusion rate, and decreased amount of intraoperative hemoglobin were significantly greater in the single open group than in the combined open group, and statistically significant differences were observed between both the groups ( P < 0.05). Postoperative voiding function improved significantly compared with the preoperative, and a statistically significant difference was observed ( P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

The combination of suprapubic prostatectomy with TURP is an effective and a safe surgical method for the treatment of patients with large volume BPH. It is certainly worthy of clinical application.

Impact of monopolar TURP, bipolar TURP and photoselective vaporization of prostate for enlarged prostate on erectile function

OBJECTIVES

To compare monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), bipolar TURP and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) by 120-W GreenLight laser with regard to the impact on International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-5 score in patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to prostate >80 mL.

METHODS

Between April 2012 and March 2015, 110 patients who satisfied eligibility criteria were divided into three groups according to surgical modality adopted to treat benign prostatic enlargement. Preoperative, perioperative, and follow-up data were collected. The three groups were as follows: group A, monopolar TURP; group B, bipolar TURP; and group C, PVP.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the three groups were similar. All the perioperative parameters were significantly favorable in group C compared with the other two groups, except for mean operative time, which was significantly higher in group C. International Prostate Symptom Score, postvoid residual urine, maximum flow rate and quality of life score had significant and similar improvement during follow up in all three groups. Also, prostate volume reduced significantly in all three groups following surgery, but it remained significantly higher in group C patients compared with groups A and B. Mean IIEF-5 score was similar between the three groups at baseline and during each of the follow-up visits. Groups A, B and C had declines of 3.27% (P = 0.34), 2.68% (P = 0.40) and 3.36% (P = 0.35), respectively, in mean IIEF-5 score at 12-month follow up compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Monopolar TURP, bipolar TURP and PVP by 120-W GreenLight laser for prostate size >80 mL do not have a significant impact on IIEF-5 score at 12-month follow up.

A Novel Technique for Post-Prostatectomy Catheter Traction

Background

Prostate traction is one way to control post-prostatectomy bleeding. The most popular method involves traction with a catheter fixed to the thigh with adhesive bands. However, this method has its own drawbacks.

Objectives

We aimed to simplify this traction procedure and to overcome its disadvantages.

Patients and Methods

From 2007 - 2015, a new method was used to control post-prostatectomy bleeding in 152 patients. This technique involved inducing pressure on the prostate neck with an indwelling catheter attached to a partially filled urine bag to control bleeding after a prostatectomy.

Results

The new method effectively controlled post-prostatectomy bleeding. A few patients required surgical intervention.

Conclusions

Post-prostatectomy catheter traction using a semi-filled urine bag was an acceptable alternative to the standard method to control post-operative bleeding.

The impact of surgical treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia on male erectile function: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)/benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is common in adult men and can impair erectile function (EF). It was believed surgical treatments for this illness can improve EF due to the relief of LUTS while they were also reported harmed EF as heating or injury effect. Current network meta-analysis aimed to elucidate this discrepancy.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Direct comparisons were conducted by STATA and network meta-analysis was conducted by Generate Mixed Treatment Comparison. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled standard mean difference and 95% confidence intervals and to incorporate variation between studies.Eighteen RCTs with 2433 participants were analyzed. Nine approaches were studied as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP), plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP), Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), Holmium laser resection of the prostate (HoLRP), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), Thulium laser, open prostatectomy (OP), and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP). In direct comparisons, all surgical treatments did not decrease postoperative International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-5 score except PVP. Moreover, patients who underwent HoLEP, PKEP, Thulium laser, and TURP had their postoperative EF significantly increased. Network analysis including direct and indirect comparisons ranked LSP at the highest position on the variation of postoperative IIEF-5 score, followed by PKRP, HoLEP, TURP, Thulium laser, PKEP, PVP, HoLRP, and OP. In subgroup analysis, only PVP was found lower postoperative EF in the short term and decreased baseline group, whereas TURP increased postoperative IIEF-5 score only for patients with normal baseline EF. However, HoLEP and PKEP showed pro-erectile effect even for patients with decreased baseline EF and short-term follow-up. Our novel data demonstrating surgical treatments for LUTS/BPH showed no negative impact on postoperative EF except PVP. Moreover, HoLEP and PKEP were found pro-erectile effect for all subgroups. New technologies, such as LSP, PKRP, and Thulium laser, were ranked at top positions in the network analysis, although they had no pro-erectile effect in direct comparison due to limited original studies or poor baseline EF. Therefore, further studies and longer follow-up are required to substantiate our findings.

Is an adjustment by transurethral surgery simultaneously needed during the suprapubic open prostatectomy?

PURPOSE

To compare suprapubic open prostatectomy (SOP) and a novel SOP with transurethral adjustment of residual adenoma and bleeding (TURARAB) for large sized prostates.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and March 2014, 49 patients with symptomatic BPH (>100 g) were scheduled for SOP or SOP with TURARAB. The patients were subdivided into two groups. In Group I, each patient underwent SOP. In Group II, each patient underwent SOP with TURARAB. Additional transurethral resection of residual adenoma and bleeding control were done through the urethra after enucleation of the prostate adenoma by SOP. Prior to intervention, all patients were analyzed by preoperative complete blood count, blood chemistry, prostate specific antigen, International Prostate Symptom Scores, and transrectal ultrasound of the prostate and uroflowmetry. SOP was performed by a suprapubic transvesical approach via a midline incision. The bladder neck mucosa was circularly incised to expose the prostate adenoma, and the plane between the adenoma and surgical capsule was developed by finger dissection. In addition, in Group II TURARAB was performed using Urosol. Postoperative outcome data were compared in the 1st month and 3rd month.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Group I required a longer operative time than Group II. Blood transfusion during the operation was unnecessary due to the short amount of time available to control arterial bleeding in the prostatic fossa leading to a marked decrease in perioperative bleeding in Group II. Postoperative voiding function improved significantly in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Even for large prostate glands, our novel procedure appears to be an effective and safe operation to reduce operation time, bleeding, and complications.