Clinical Outcome of Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate Compared With Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy for Prostates Larger Than 80 cm3 in Aging Male

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.

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate vs Transvesical Single-port Robotic Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostatic Glands

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative outcomes of transvesical single-port robotic simple prostatectomy (SP-RASP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing SP-RASP and HoLEP from 2019 to 2022 with preoperative prostatic volume (PPV) >80 cm3. Percent of prostate adenoma removed (%PAR) was estimated by specimen weight normalized by PPV. Univariate analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. A subgroup analysis with 1:1 matching for PPV was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 50 SP-RASP and 90 HoLEP cases were analyzed. The median (interquartile range) PPV was 169 (128-244)cm3 for SP-RASP and 129 (100-150)cm3 for HoLEP, (P < .01). The median (interquartile range) %PAR was 57(44-68) for SP-RASP vs 51(42-62) for HoLEP (P = .10). Overall, 11(12%) HoLEP and 5(10%) SP-RASP patients experienced complications (P = .51). Same-day discharge occurred in 24(48%) SP-RASP vs 7(8%) HoLEP patients (P < .01). Median foley catheter duration was longer in SP-RASP (6 vs 1 day, P < .01) and trial of void was successful at first attempt in >94% (P = .68). Transient de novo incontinence was reported in 24(28%) HoLEP vs 2(5%) SP-RASP (P < .01). No differences in voiding parameters were observed at latest follow up. Subgroup postmatched analysis revealed analogous findings.

CONCLUSION

SP-RASP and HoLEP have similar favorable perioperative outcomes for management of large prostatic adenomas. SP-RASP may be considered in patients unwilling to accept the risk of transient incontinence and in those with unfavorable urethral access, large bladder stone burden, or diverticula.

Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy versus other treatment modalities for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6500 cases

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend simple prostatectomy or endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) as treatment of choice for bladder prostatic obstruction (BPO) caused by large prostate glands. We aimed to provide a wide-ranging analysis of the currently available evidence, comparing safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) versus open simple prostatectomy (OSP), laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), and laser EEP.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for retrospective and prospective studies comparing RASP to OSP or LSP or laser EEP (HoLEP/ThuLEP). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations were followed to design the search strategies, selection criteria, and evidence report. A meta-analysis evaluated perioperative safety and effectiveness outcomes. The weighted mean difference and risk ratio were used to compare continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for RCT article assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

15 studies, including 6659 patients, were selected for meta-analysis: 13 observational studies, 1 non-randomized prospective study, and 1 randomized controlled trial. RASP was associated with statistically significant longer operative time (OT) and lower postoperative complication rate, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and transfusion rate (TR) compared to OSP. LSP showed longer LOS and lower postoperative SHIM score, with no difference in OT, EBL, and complications. Compared to laser EEP, RASP presented longer LOS and catheterization time and higher TR. ThuLEP presented shorter OT than RASP. No difference were found in functional outcomes between groups both subjectively (IPSS, QoL) and objectively (Qmax, PVR).

CONCLUSION

RASP has become a size-independent treatment for the management of BPO caused by a large prostate gland. It can duplicate the functional outcomes of OSP while offering a better safety profile. When compared to LSP, the latter still stands as a valid lower-cost option, but it requires solid laparoscopic skill sets and therefore it is unlikely to spread on larger scale. When compared to laser EEP, RASP offers a shorter learning curve, but it still suffers from longer catheterization time and LOS.

Efficacy and Safety of the Sandwich Method in Patients with Benign Prostate Hyperplasia: Bipolar Transurethral Resection with GreenLight Vaporization

Benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) refers to the nonmalignant enlargement of the transition zone of the prostate gland. While holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and open simple prostatectomy are effective in the management of patients with large prostates, they have some limitations. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of the sandwich method of bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) and GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate (GLPVP) in patients with large prostates. Patients diagnosed with BPH who underwent the sandwich method with B-TURP and GLPVP from 2015 to 2020 were included. Efficacy analyses included the change in the uroflowmetry results in both group A (prostate volume < 80 g) and group B (prostate volume ≥ 80 g), and complication analyses included perioperative complications, early postoperative complications at three months and late postoperative complications at 12 months. The cohort comprised 188 and 44 patients in groups A and B, respectively. The prostate volume of groups A and B were 50.83 ± 14.14 g and 102.03 ± 19.36 g (p < 0.001), respectively. The peak (Qmax) and average (Qavg) flow rates were comparable between the two groups. The only significant difference noted was in the postoperative post-void residual (PVR) urine. Improvement was seen in all the variables including the Qmax, Qavg and PVR urine in each group. No patient experienced perioperative complications. Analysis of the overall one-year complication rate showed no significant difference between the two groups. The sandwich method of B-TURP and GLPVP may be feasible for the management of patients with large prostate.