Holmium laser enucleation versus laparoscopic simple prostatectomy for large adenomas

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), Q_max, 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 (Q_max, PVR, %ΔQ_max) 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; Q_max 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), Q_max 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.

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.

MODERN METHODS OF ENDOSCOPIC ENUCLEATION OF BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA AND PROSPECTS FOR THEIR MODIFICATION

The disadvantage of bipolar and holmium enucleation in transurethral surgery of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the frequent postoperative urination disorders. To increase the effectiveness of surgical treatment, a modification of the surgical technique is necessary.Objective: to compare the perioperative results of endosurgical treatment of large sized BPH using transurethral bipolar (TUEB), laser (HoLEP) and modified laser prostate enucleation (HoLEP-M) methods. Patients and methods: A randomized prospective study was conducted according to the results of surgical treatment of 1104 patients with BPH with a volume of 80 to 350 cm3, divided by methods of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. A mod-ification of the HoLEP technique was to optimize access to the surgical site with the designation of new anatomical landmarks.Results: Comparison of surgical methods showed their equivalence in the volume of removed tissue, the low frequency of hemorrhagic and infectious complications, the dynamics of urological indicators in the delayed period. TUEB has the least parameters for the time of surgical intervention (98.2 ± 2.24 min.), the vol-ume of blood loss (65.5 ± 1.83 ml), the terms of postoperative catheterization of the bladder (2.0 ± 0.32 days), and the days of hospitalization (3.2 ± 0.40 days). The safety of laser methods is higher than TUEB, during which 3.1% of closed perforations of the prostatic capsule and bladder were observed (versus 0.8-1.5% with laser methods). Modification of the HoLEP technique allows reducing the frequency of late dysuric disorders by 2-3 times, urinary incontinence by 3.4-4 times, cicatricial complications by 1.7-2 times.Conclusion: Bipolar and laser methods of transurethral enucleation of the prostate of large sizes are comparable by criteria of complete removal of prostatic tissue, effectiveness and tolerability in patients with thrombohemorrhagic risk. In terms of the frequency of intraoperative injuries, the safety of laser methods is higher due to the reduced penetrating ability of laser energy. Modification of surgical access to the prostate preserves the prostatic urethra as much as possible and is a promising measure for the prevention of late obstructive and functional complications of transurethral interventions.

Holmium Laser Enucleation, Laparoscopic Simple Prostatectomy, or Open Prostatectomy: The Role of the Prostate Volume in terms of Operation Time

INTRODUCTION

To compare the prostate removal speeds of 3 enucleation techniques and to evaluate how the operating times change depending on the prostate volume.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with 80-g or larger prostates who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), or open prostatectomy (OP) due to medical treatment-resistant benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to the surgical procedure. Age, BMI, prostate weights, total operation times, prostate removal speeds, hospitalization and catheterization days, complications, and improvements on functional outcomes in the 3rd month of follow-up were compared between groups. In addition, the association between prostate weight and total operation time was analyzed for each group.

RESULTS

HoLEP, LSP, and OP groups consisted of 60, 61, and 37 patients, respectively. While HoLEP was similar to OP in terms of prostate removal speed and total operation time, LSP was statistically slower and required more operation time than HoLEP and OP. There was a relationship between prostate weight and total operation time only in HoLEP.

CONCLUSION

LSP, one of the enucleation techniques in the treatment of large prostates, was slower and required more operation time than HoLEP and OP in terms of total operation time and prostate removal speed. HoLEP seems going to be the fastest candidate for the rapid removal of large prostates in the future.

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

Laparoscopic adenomectomy: 10 years of experience

INTRODUCTION

Lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to increased prostate volume are associated with ageing and are becoming more prevalent due to increased life expectancy. We present our experience with transperitoneal laparoscopic adenomectomy for the management of bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic enlargement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent laparoscopic adenomectomy between 2005 and 2015. We recorded age, maximum flow and postvoid residual urine (preoperative and postoperative), surgical time, operative bleeding, weight and pathology, complications and duration of catheterisation and hospitalisation.

RESULTS

We included 80 patients with a mean age of 70 years. The mean preoperative and postoperative Qmax was 8.21mL/s and 22.52mL/s, respectively. The mean preoperative and postoperative postvoid residual urine was 91.4mL and 14.2mL, respectively. The mean surgical time was 137.7min. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in one case due to intestinal injury. The mean intraoperative bleeding was 227.6mL. The mean hospital stay was 5.46 days, and the catheterisation time was 4.86 days. There were 13 complications, which were recorded according to the Clavien-Dindo system, 3 of which were severe. The mean weight of the surgical specimen was 80.02g. Pathology showed benign hyperplasia in 75 cases and prostate cancer in the remaining 5.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic adenomectomy is a safe, reproducible technique with the same functional results as open surgery. Our series shows that this approach is useful and safe and has a low rate of complications.

Thulium laser enucleation (ThuLEP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate in saline (TURis): A randomized prospective trial to compare intra and early postoperative outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical intra and early postoperative outcomes between thulium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and transurethral bipolar resection of the prostate (TURis) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a prospective randomized trial.

METHODS

The study randomized 208 consecutive patients with BPH to ThuLEP (n=102) or TURis (n=106). For all patients were evaluated preoperatively with regards to blood loss, catheterization time, irrigation volume, hospital stay and operative time. At 3 months after surgery they were also evaluated by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR).

RESULTS

The patients in each study arm each showed no significant difference in preoperative parameters. Compared with TURIS, ThuLEP had same operative time (53.69±31.44 vs 61.66±18.70minutes, P=.123) but resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.83g/dL, P=.005). ThuLEP also needed less catheterization time (1.3 vs 4.8 days, P=.011), irrigation volume (29.4 vs 69.2 L, P=.002), and hospital stay (1.7 vs 5.2 days, P=.016). During the 3 months of follow-up, the procedures did not demonstrate a significant difference in Qmax, IPSS, PVR, and QOLS.

CONCLUSION

ThuLEP and TURis both relieve lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP was statistically superior to TURis in blood loss, catheterization time, irrigation volume, and hospital stay. However, procedures did not differ significantly in Qmax, IPSS, PVR, and QOLS through 3 months of follow-up.

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate versus Laparoscopic Transcapsular Prostatectomy: Perioperative Results and Three-Month Follow-Up

PURPOSE

Symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy greater than 70 cc used to be treated by invasive procedures. Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) and laparoscopic transcapsular prostatectomy (LTP) are two techniques whose efficacy has been demonstrated compared to standard onesmore invasive standard procedures. The objective was to evaluate and compare perioperative results from these two techniques for the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy greater than 70 cc.

METHODS

This was a non-randomized retrospective study comparing the HoLEP technique with LTP. From January 2012 to January 2015, 39 patients had HoLEP and 28 had LTP. Perioperative outcomes, complications, and functional results at 3 months were compared. A chi-2 squared test and Student's t test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In multivariate analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of HoLEP for the duration of catheterization (1.9 vs. 3.7 days; p = 0.004) and the average length of stay (2.8 vs. 4.0 days, p = 0.010). There was a trend towards a greater decrease in postoperative hemoglobin levels in LTP (138 vs. 218 g/l; p = 0.082), which was statistically significant in univariate analysis (p = 0.033). Other endpoints were not significant, particularly the enucleated prostate volume compared to the total prostate volume (61.8 vs. 68.4%; p = 0.319) and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

There was no increased morbidity for LTP compared to the HoLEP technique. However, the HoLEP technique appeared to be a less invasive technique, reducing the duration of catheterization, blood loss, and the average length of stay while maintaining good efficacy for the enucleated prostate volume.

Prospective study comparing laparoscopic and open adenomectomy: Surgical and functional results

INTRODUCTION

Open adenomectomy (OA) is the surgery of choice for large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia, and laparoscopic adenomectomy (LA) represents a minimally invasive alternative. We present a long-term, prospective study comparing both techniques.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study consecutively included 199 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate volumes>80g who were followed for more than 12 months. The patients underwent OA (n=97) or LA (n=102). We recorded and compared demographic and perioperative data, functional results and complications using a descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age was 69.2±7.7 years (range 42-87), and the mean prostate volume (measured by TRUS) was 112.1±32.7mL (range 78-260). There were no baseline differences among the groups in terms of age, ASA scale, prostate volume, PSA levels, Qmax, IPSS, QoL or treatments prior to the surgery. The surgical time (P<.0001) and catheter time (P<.0002) were longer in the LA group. Operative bleeding (P<.0001), transfusion rate (P=.0015) and mean stay (P<.0001) were significantly lower in the LA group. The LA group had a lower rate of complications (P=.04), but there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of major complications (Clavien score≥3) (P=.13) or in the rate of late complications (at one year) (P=.66). There were also no differences between the groups in the functional postoperative results: IPSS (P=.17), QoL (P=.3) and Qmax (P=.17).

CONCLUSIONS

LA is a reasonable, safe and effective alternative that results in less bleeding, fewer transfusions, shorter hospital stays and lower morbidity than OA. LA has similar functional results to OA, at the expense of longer surgical times and longer catheter times.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms. A review of current evidence

CONTEXT

The treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is changing due to a greater understanding of the disease and the development of the functional concept of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

OBJECTIVES

To describe the current state of BPH and the diagnosis and treatment of LUTS.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

We summarise the issues presented and debated by a group of expert urologists during the First UROVI Congress, sponsored by the Spanish Urological Association.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

LUTS encompasses filling, voiding and postvoiding symptoms that affect patients' quality of life. The aetiological diagnosis is an important element in starting the most ideal treatment. For this reason, new alternative therapies (both pharmacological and surgical) are needed to help individually address the symptoms in the various patient profiles. There is now a new combination of drugs (6mg of solifenacin and 0.4mg of the tamsulosin oral controlled absorption system) for treating moderate to severe filling symptoms and emptying symptoms associated with BPH in patients who do not respond to monotherapy. Furthermore, new surgical techniques that are increasingly less invasive help provide surgical options for older patients and those with high comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of drugs that can act on the various LUTS helps integrate the pathophysiological paradigm into the functional one, providing more appropriate treatment for our patients.