Complications of anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate

Influence of Early Apical Release on Outcomes in Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate: Results From a Multicenter Series of 4392 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes after laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) stratified by whether early apical release (EAR) was performed or not.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent EEP with holmium or thulium fiber laser in 8 centers (January 2020-January 2022).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

previous prostate/urethral surgery, prostate cancer, pelvic radiotherapy, concomitant lower urinary tract surgery. One-to-one propensity score-matching was performed between patients with EAR vs no EAR, with covariates including age, prostate volume, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, preoperative indwelling catheter, IPSS, Qmax, enucleation, and laser types. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate independent predictors of 30-day postoperative complications and urinary incontinence.

RESULTS

EAR was performed in 2094 of 4392 included patients. The matched cohort consisted of 787 patients per arm. Total operation time was significantly longer in the EAR group (median 75 vs 67 minutes, P = .004). Early complications were higher in the EAR group (18.6% vs 12.5%, P = .001), while postoperative incontinence rates were similar (14.1% vs 13.1%, P = .61). Multivariable regression analysis showed that 3-lobe enucleation and operation time were significant predictors of postoperative complications; preoperative indwelling catheterization, higher prostate volume, and en-bloc enucleation were associated with higher odds of postoperative incontinence.

LIMITATION

retrospective nature.

CONCLUSION

Performing EAR during EEP is associated with a greater incidence of early complications, which was mainly driven by higher rates of postoperative hematuria and perioperative transfusion. The risk of postoperative incontinence and its duration are not affected by EAR.

Holmium laser with MOSES technology (MoLEP) vs Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in a real-world setting. Mid-term outcomes from a multicenter propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

To compare Holmium laser with MOSES technology (MoLEP) and Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in terms of surgical and functional outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent either procedure in five centers (January 2020-January 2022).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

previous urethral/prostatic surgery, radiotherapy, concomitant surgery. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to adjust for the bias inherent to the different characteristics at baseline. Differences between procedures were estimated using Firth Penalized Likelihood regression for International prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QL), maximum flow rate (Qmax).

RESULTS

PSM retrieved 118 patients in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar except for PSA and number of men on indwelling catheter (higher in MoLEP group). Median surgical time was significantly longer in the MoLEP group despite the enucleation and morcellation times being similar. Median catheter dwelling time and postoperative length of stay were similar. Most of the early complications were Clavien ≤ 2 grade. There were only two Clavien grade 3 complications (one for each group), one grade 4 in MoLEP group. Rate and type of early and persistent incontinence (> 3 months) were similar. At 12-month, proportion of patients reaching a decrease (Δ) of IPSS ≥ 18 from baseline was significantly larger in MoLEP group, with no significant difference in ΔQmax > 12 ml/sec and ΔQL ≥ -3.

CONCLUSION

MoLEP and ThuFLEP were safe and efficacious procedures with similar short-term operative and functional outcomes. At 1-year, MoLEP patients had a sustained reduction of IPPS score.

Low- vs. High-Power Laser for Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) constitutes an established technique for treating patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction. Most surgeons perform surgeries using high-power (HP) settings. Nevertheless, HP laser machines are costly, require high-power sockets, and may be linked with increased postoperative dysuria. Low-power (LP) lasers could overcome these drawbacks without compromising postoperative outcomes. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of data regarding LP laser settings during HoLEP, as most endourologists are hesitant to apply them in their clinical practice. We aimed to provide an up-to-date narrative looking at the impact of LP settings in HoLEP and comparing LP with HP HoLEP. According to current evidence, intra- and post-operative outcomes as well as complication rates are independent of the laser power level. LP HoLEP is feasible, safe, and effective and may improve postoperative irritative and storage symptoms.

Risk factors for the postoperative bladder neck contracture in patients with small-volume prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

This study was to explore the risk factors for postoperative bladder neck contracture (BNC) after transurethral operation of prostate in patients with small-volume prostatic obstruction.

METHODS

Clinicopathologic data at our center from February 2016 to January 2020 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Clinicopathological characteristics between patients with and without BNC were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the risk factors for postoperative BNC.

RESULTS

There were a total of 39 patients (8.53%) with postoperative BNC. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that preoperative bladder neck diameter (BND), intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP), surgical methods (transurethral resection of prostate (TURP)/anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP)), and postoperative urinary tract infection (UTI) were independent risk factors for postoperative BNC in patients with small-volume prostatic obstruction (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative BNC in patients undergoing AEEP was significantly decreased compared with those undergoing TURP. The optimal cut-off value of preoperative IPP was 6.10 mm while the optimal cut-off value of preoperative BND was 2.52 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger preoperative bladder neck and higher preoperative IPP lead to decreased incidence of postoperative BNC in patients with small-volume prostatic obstruction. Active management of postoperative UTI could effectively prevent the occurrence of postoperative BNC. Compared with TURP, complete AEEP would contribute to reduce BNC in patients with small-volume prostatic obstruction.

Thulium: YAG vs continuous-wave thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate: do potential advantages of thulium fiber lasers translate into relevant clinical differences?

PURPOSE

To compare endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser and a super-pulsed thulium fiber laser set in continuous-wave (CW) mode, and to evaluate whether theoretical advantages of thulium fiber lasers, related to their shorter wavelength, translate into relevant clinical differences.

METHODS

In total, 110 patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to undergo either thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) or CW thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (CW-ThuFLEP). Intraoperative and postoperative variables and complications were compared. Micturition improvement was assessed at 3-month follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine (PVR) and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Erectile function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5).

RESULTS

No significant differences between the ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP groups were found in terms of operative time (70.69 vs 72.41 min), enucleation time (50.23 vs 53.33 min), enucleated tissue weight (40.2 vs 41.9 g), enucleation efficiency (0.80 vs 0.79 g/min), catheterization time (2.45 vs 2.57 days), hospital stay (2.82 vs 2.95 days) and hemoglobin drop (1.05 vs 1.27 g/dl). At 3-month follow-up, no significant differences were found in IPSS (5.09 vs 5.81), Qmax (26.51 vs 27.13 ml/s), PVR (25.22 vs 23.81 ml) and IIEF-5 (14.01 vs 14.54).

CONCLUSION

ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP were equivalent in relieving patients from LUTS and improving micturition. Theoretical advantages of the TFL, such as shallower penetration depth and improved vaporization capacity, did not translate into relevant perioperative outcomes or clinical differences.