Systematic review and economic modelling of effectiveness and cost utility of surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement

Evaluation of bipolar Transurethral Enucleation and Resection of the Prostate in terms of efficiency and patient satisfaction compared to retropubic open prostatectomy in prostates larger than 80 cc. A prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes of bipolar Transurethral Enucleation Resection of the Prostate (TUERP) and simple retropubic prostatectomy in patients with prostate volumes larger than 80 cc.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized study included all patients amenable to surgeries for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) with prostate size over 80 cc at a tertiary care hospital between January 2020 to February 2022. Bipolar TUERP and Retropubic open prostatectomy techniques were compared regarding patients' demographics, intraoperative parameters, outcomes, and peri-operative complications.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were included in our study and randomly assigned to bipolar TUERP (Group 1 = 45 patients) and retropubic open prostatectomy (Group 2 = 45 patients). The TUERP group demonstrated significantly lower operative time (77 ± 11 minutes vs. 99 ± 14 minutes, p < 0.001), hemoglobin drop (median = 1.1 vs. 2.5, p < 0.001), and resected tissue weight (71 ± 6.6 cc vs. 84.5 ± 10.6 cc, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, the TUERP group demonstrated significantly lower catheter time (median = 2 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001) and less hospital stay. IPSS, Qmax, and patient satisfaction were better in the TUERP group within six months of surgery. We reported 90-day complications after TUERP in 13.3% of patients compared to 17.8% after retropubic prostatectomy, with a statistically insignificant difference. Urethral stricture predominated after TUERP, while blood transfusion dominated in retropubic prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study found that TUERP had equivalent efficacy and safety to open retropubic prostatectomy for patients with BPH and prostate volumes > 80 ml.

B-TURP versus HoLEP: Peri-Operative Outcomes and Complications in Frail Elderly (>75 y.o.) Patients: A Prospective Randomized Study

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the peri-operative and functional results between trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in middle-old patients. Materials and Methods: This prospective single-center study included patients over 75 years old treated with B-TURP or HoLEP for BPH associated with LUTS with prostate volume (PV) <100 mL. Primary endpoints were the intra-operative blood loss, percentage of loss of hemoglobin, blood transfusion, complications, and the comparison of functional outcomes. All patients were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up. Results: Overall, 96 patients undergoing HoLEP and 104 B-TURP were eligible and enrolled for the study. Post-operative results showed statistically significant differences between the two groups, all in favor of HoLEP group, specifically in terms of removed prostate tissue, PV reduction rate, hemoglobin values at 24 h, hemoglobin loss, operative time, length of hospitalization, days of catheterization, and urinary flow rates. There was no significant difference in terms of postvoid residual urine volume, perioperative complication, blood transfusion, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and IPSS quality of life scores. Conclusions: In middle-old patients, the HoLEP technique represents a prostate size-independent treatment option with a more favorable safety profile defined by less bleeding, lower blood transfusions, and a significantly lower hemoglobin drop than B-TURP.

UroLift for Treating Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance Update

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) commonly occur as a consequence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), also known as prostate enlargement. Treatments for this can involve electrosurgical removal of a section of the prostate via transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), or prostatic urethral lift using the UroLift system. The UroLift system implants to pull excess prostatic tissue away so that it does not narrow or block the urethra. In this way, the device is designed to relieve symptoms of urinary outflow obstruction without cutting or removing tissue. National guidance recommending the use of UroLift in the UK NHS was first issued in 2015 by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE MTG26). We now report on the process to update the economic evaluation of UroLift, leading to updated NICE guidance published in May 2021 (NICE MTG58). The conclusions of the available clinical evidence were mixed and suggested that whilst UroLift improves symptoms over time, this improvement is smaller than that of TURP for symptom severity (IPSS) and urological outcomes. However, UroLift appears to be superior to Rezum for symptom severity and measures of erectile dysfunction and ejaculatory dysfunction. The updated economic model estimated that using UroLift as a day-case procedure for people with prostate of volume 30-80 mL creates a saving of £981 per person compared with bipolar TURP, £1242 compared with monopolar TURP, and £1230 compared with HoLEP.

A comprehensive analysis of clinical, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness outcomes of key treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Treatment options for men with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) have variable efficacy, safety, and retreatment profiles, contributing to variations in patient quality of life and healthcare costs. This study examined the long-term cost-effectiveness of generic combination therapy (CT), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of BPH. A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical trials of CT, PUL, WVTT, PVP, and TURP that reported change in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) for men with BPH and a prostate volume ≤80 cm³. A random-effects network meta‐analysis was used to account for the differences in patient baseline clinical characteristics between trials. An Excel-based Markov model was developed with a cohort of males with a mean age of 63 and an average IPSS of 22 to assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options at 1 and 5 years from a US Medicare perspective. Procedural and adverse event (AE)-related costs were based on 2021 Medicare reimbursement rates. Total Medicare costs at 5 years were highest for PUL ($9,580), followed by generic CT ($8,223), TURP ($6,328), PVP ($6,152), and WVTT ($2,655). The total cost of PUL was driven by procedural ($7,258) and retreatment ($1,168) costs. At 5 years, CT and PUL were associated with fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than WVTT, PVP, and TURP. Compared to WVTT, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for both TURP and PVP were above a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY (TURP: $64,409/QALY; PVP: $87,483/QALY). This study provides long-term cost-effectiveness evidence for several common treatment options for men with BPH. WVTT is an effective and economically viable treatment in resource-constrained environments.

Holmium laser enucleation versus bipolar transurethral enucleation for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia, which one is better?

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the overall efficacy and safety between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (B-TUEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHOD

We systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) to identify eligible comparative studies as of July 2021. The parameters including perioperative results, complications, and functional outcomes were evaluated. RevMan version 5.4 was used for the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies involving 1725 patients were included. HoLEP had lower operative time (p = .03), shorter catheterization time (p = .007), lower bladder irrigation time (p = .01), and higher enucleation weight (p = .01) compared with B-TUEP. However, there were no significant differences between the techniques regarding the length of stay (LOS), hemoglobin drop, transfusion rates, and complications. Furthermore, no significant differences were also observed in postoperative functional outcomes at 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

HoLEP has more advantages in perioperative parameters compared with B-TUEP, but no significant differences are found regarding functional outcomes and complications. Large-scale studies with long-term follow-up are required to compare the outcomes of these two techniques.

1-year cost-utility analysis of prostate artery embolization (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)

Objective

To determine whether prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a cost-effective alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) after 1-year follow-up.

Design, setting and main outcome measures

A retrospective cost-utility analysis over a 12-month time period was conducted to compare the two interventions from a National Health Service perspective. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from data collected during the observational UK Register of Prostate Embolisation (UK-ROPE) Study. Costs for both PAE and TURP were derived from University Hospital Southampton, a tertiary referral centre for BPH and the largest contributor to the UK-ROPE. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived from cost and QALY values associated with both interventions to assess the cost-effectiveness of PAE versus TURP. Further sensitivity analyses involved a decision tree model to account for the impact of patient-reported complications on the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

Results

The mean patient age for TURP (n=31) and PAE (n=133) was 69 and 65.6 years, respectively. In comparison to TURP, PAE was cheaper due to shorter patient stays and the lack of necessity for an operating theatre. Analysis revealed an ICER of £64 798.10 saved per QALY lost when comparing PAE to TURP after 1-year follow-up.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that PAE is initially a cost-effective alternative to TURP for the management of BPH after 1-year follow-up. Due to a higher reintervention rate in the PAE group, this benefit may be lost in subsequent years.

Trial registration number

NCT02434575.

Greenlight laser photoselective vaporization vs open simple prostatectomy: long-term functional outcomes after treatment of large volume prostates (> 80 cc)

PURPOSE

To compare long-term outcomes between photoselective vaporization (PVP) and Open simple prostatectomy (OSP) for prostates > 80 cc.

METHODS

Men operated either by PVP or OSP for BPH > 80 cc were included in two expert centres. Functional and uroflowmetric outcomes were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Data were collected prospectively in the PVP group and retrospectively in the OSP group and compared at long-term follow-up. Complications and re-intervention rates were used as main outcomes.

RESULTS

332 men underwent surgery: 132 PVP were performed in a fist expert-centre and 200 OSP were performed in a second one with a median follow-up of 54 and 48 months, respectively. Mean Prostate volume was similar between OSP and PVP group (119 vs 116 cc). Major complications were more common in the OSP group (12.5 vs 1.5%, p < 0.001). At long-term follow-up, Qmax was higher and PVR was lower (p < 0.05) in the OSP group. IPSS score was similar between groups (p = 0.45) but the Qol was better in the OSP group (0.9 vs. 1.6; p < 0.05). There were more re-interventions in the PVP group compared to OSP (15.2 vs. 0%, p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

PVP is a good alternative for prostates > 80 cc particularly for fragile patients as it is associated with a lower complication rate. At long-term follow-up, IPSS was similar between groups, but Qol was better in the OSP group. Patients treated by PVP should be informed that they could require reoperation in 15% of the cases.

Surgical treatment of GERD: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has a high worldwide prevalence in adults and children. There is uncertainty regarding medical versus surgical therapy and different surgical techniques. This review assessed outcomes of antireflux surgery versus medical management of GERD in adults and children, robotic versus laparoscopic fundoplication, complete versus partial fundoplication, and minimal versus maximal dissection in pediatric patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (2004-2019) to identify randomized control and non-randomized comparative studies. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility. Random effects meta-analysis was performed on comparative data. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

From 1473 records, 105 studies were included. Most had high or uncertain risk of bias. Analysis demonstrated that anti-reflux surgery was associated with superior short-term quality of life compared to PPI (Std mean difference =  - 0.51, 95%CI  - 0.63, - 0.40, I² = 0%) however short-term symptom control was not significantly superior (RR = 0.75, 95%CI 0.47, 1.21, I² = 82%). A proportion of patients undergoing operative treatment continue PPI treatment (28%). Robotic and laparoscopic fundoplication outcomes were similar. Compared to total fundoplication, partial fundoplication was associated with higher rates of prolonged PPI usage (RR = 2.06, 95%CI 1.08, 3.94, I² = 45%). There was no statistically significant difference for long-term symptom control (RR = 0.94, 95%CI 0.85, 1.04, I² = 53%) or long-term dysphagia (RR = 0.73, 95%CI 0.52, 1.02, I² = 0%). Ien, minimal dissection during fundoplication was associated with lower reoperation rates than maximal dissection (RR = 0.21, 95%CI 0.06, 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence regarding the optimal treatment of GERD often suffers from high risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized control trials may further inform surgical decision making in the treatment of GERD.

[Surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction: Guidelines from the Committee for Male Voiding Disorders of the French Urology Association]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Committee (CTMH) of the French Urology Association was to propose an update of the guidelines for surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO).

METHODS

All available data published on PubMed® between 2018 and 2020 were systematically searched and reviewed. All papers assessing surgical and interventional management of adult patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) were included for analysis. After studies critical analysis, conclusions with level of evidence and French guidelines were elaborated in order to answer the predefined clinical questions.

RESULTS/GUIDELINES

Offer a trans-uretral incision of the prostate to treat patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with a prostate volume<30cm³, without a middle lobe. TUIP increases the chances of preserving ejaculation. Propose mono- or bipolar trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS with a prostate volume between 30 and 80cm³. Vaporization by Greenlight™ or by bipolar energy can be offered as an alternative to TURP. Offer a Greenlight™ laser vaporization to patients at risk of bleeding. Offer endoscopic prostate enucleation to surgically treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS as an alternative to TURP and open prostatectomy (OP). Minimally invasive prostatectomy is an alternative to OP in centers without access to adequate endoscopic procedures. Embolization of the prostatic arteries may be offered in the event of a contraindication or refusal of surgery for prostates with a volume>80cm³. Prostatic uretral lift is an alternative in patients interested in preserving their ejaculatory function and with a prostate volume<70cm³ without a middle lobe. Aquablation and Rezum™ are under evaluation and should be offered in research protocols.

CONCLUSION

Major changes in surgical management of BPO have occurred and aim at reducing morbidity and improving quality of life of patients.

The UroLift® System for lower urinary tract obstruction: patient selection for optimum clinical outcome

INTRODUCTION

The minimally invasive UroLift^® System procedure in moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) refractory to medical treatment may be superior over other prostate procedures regarding its preserved sexual function post-operatively. We aimed to optimise patient selection criteria for the UroLift^® System.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-one men that underwent UroLift^® System surgery were retrospectively reviewed over >24 months. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of UroLift^® System, pre-operatively and at three, six, 12, and 24 months post-operatively, assessing the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPPS), urinary flow rates (Qmax), post void residual (PVR) bladder scan volumes and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Adverse events were assessed by Clavien-Dindo Classification.

RESULTS

The 51 men undergoing UroLift^® System had a success rate of 92.2% over 2 years, with improvements in Qmax, IPSS and PVR. IIEF was preserved in all cases. Adverse events were Clavien-Dindo grade 1, most commonly mild-to-severe dysuria (19.6%), and resolved spontaneously. Four patients failed to improve.

CONCLUSION

Patient-related selection criteria to optimise the UroLift^® System clinical outcomes include age, Qmax, PVR urine, median lobe, PSA levels, prostate volume, IPSS and IIEF scores. The UroLift^® System is safe and effective in moderate-to-severe BPH refractory to pharmacological treatments and avoids retrograde ejaculation.

Is Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate a Good Surgical Alternative in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Management? A Review Article

Several therapeutic approaches such as holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) have been introduced to relieve bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Compared with other techniques including the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and simple open prostatectomy, HoLEP results in a shorter hospital stay and catheterization time and fewer blood loss and transfusions. HoLEP is a size-independent treatment option for BPH with average gland size from 36 g to 170 g. HoLEP is a safe procedure in patients receiving an anticoagulant and has no significant influence on the hemoglobin level. Also, HoLEP is an easy and safe technique in patients with a prior history of prostate surgery and a need for retreatment because of adenoma regrowth. The postoperative erectile dysfunction rate of patients treated with HoLEP is similar to TURP or open prostatectomy and about 77% of these patients experience loss of ejaculation. Patients with transitional zone volume less than 30 mL may suffer from persistent stress urinary incontinence following HoLEP so other surgical techniques like bipolar TURP are a good choice for these patients. In young patients, considering HoLEP with high prostate-specific antigen density and a negative standard template prostate biopsy, multiparametric MRI needs to be considered to exclude prostate cancer.

Transurethral endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a diode laser versus bipolar plasmakinetic for benign prostatic obstruction: a meta-analysis

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) versus bipolar plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A systematic literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CKNI databases to identify eligible studies published before April 2019. The quality of evidence and methodology was assessed. Primary outcomes were clinical and demographic characteristics and postoperative efficacy including maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR), quality of life (QoL), and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS); secondary outcomes were intraoperative variables and major complications. Meta-analyses of extracted data were performed with the RevMan version 5.2. The overall effects were determined by the Z-test, and a p value less than 0.05 was considered with significant difference. A fixed- or random-effect model was chosen to fit the pooled heterogeneity (determined by Chi-squared test and I²). As qualified trials were few, subgroup analyses were not performed. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 451 patients were enrolled in our meta-analysis. In the included trials, all the diode (wavelength at 980 nm and 1470 nm) lasers applied output at continuous wave mode; the energy settings ranged from 120 to 160 W for enucleation and 30 to 60 W for coagulation. DiLEP provided less perioperative hemoglobin decrease (MD = - 3.22; 95% CI (- 5.15, - 1.29); p = 0.001; I² = 65%), less postoperative catheterization time (MD = - 17.82; 95% CI (- 32.74, - 2.90); p = 0.02; I² = 96%), less postoperative irrigation time (MD = - 7.15; 95% CI (- 13.67, - 0.62); p = 0.03; I² = 98%), and lower incidence of urinary irritative symptoms (OR = 0.31; 95% CI (0.14, 0.67); p = 0.003; I² = 0%) compared with PKEP. During the 1, 3, 6, and 12-month postoperative follow-up, no statistically significant difference was found in Qmax, IPSS, QoL, and PVR between the procedures. As regards other perioperative and postoperative parameters and major complications, we found no significant difference. Both DiLEP and PKEP are safe and efficient methods for the treatment of BPH. However, DiLEP showed less perioperative hemoglobin decrease, less postoperative catheterization time, less postoperative irrigation time, and lower rates of postoperative irritative symptoms compared with the PKEP group.

A randomized trial comparing bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight laser (xps-180watt) photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction: outcomes after 2 years

OBJECTIVE

To test the non-inferiority of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) compared to GreenLight laser (GL) photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for reduction of benign prostatic hyperplasia-related lower urinary tract symptoms in a randomized trial.

METHODS

Eligible patients with prostate volumes of 30-80 mL were randomly allocated to GL-PVP (n = 58) or bipolar TUVP (n = 61). Non-inferiority of symptom score (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]) at 24 months was evaluated. All peri-operative variables were recorded and compared. Urinary (IPSS, maximum urinary flow rate and post-void residual urine volume) and sexual (International Index of Erectile Function-15) outcome measures were evaluated at 1, 4, 12 and 24 months. Need for retreatment and complications, change in PSA level and health resources-related costs of both procedures were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

Baseline and peri-operative variables were similar in the two groups. At 1, 4, 12 and 24 months, 117, 116, 99 and 96 patients, respectively, were evaluable. Regarding urinary outcome measures, there was no significant difference between the groups. The mean ± sd IPSS at 1 and 2 years was 7.1 ± 3 and 7.9 ± 2.9 (P = 0.8), respectively, after GL-PVP and 6.3 ± 3.1 and 7.2 ± 2.8, respectively, after bipolar TUVP (P = 0.31). At 24 months, the mean difference in IPSS was 0.7 (95% confidence interval -0.6 to 2.3; P = 0.6). The median (range) postoperative PSA reduction was 64.7 (25-99)% and 65.9 (50-99)% (P = 0.006) after GL-PVP, and 32.1 (28.6-89.7)% and 39.3 (68.8-90.5)% (P = 0.005) after bipolar TUVP, at 1 and 2 years, respectively. After 2 years, retreatment for recurrent bladder outlet obstruction was reported in eight (13.8%) and 10 (16.4%) patients in the GL-PVP and bipolar TUVP groups, respectively (P = 0.8). The mean estimated cost per bipolar TUVP procedure was significantly lower than per GL-PVP procedure after 24 months (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of symptom control, bipolar TUVP was not inferior to GL-PVP at 2 years. Durability of the outcome needs to be tracked. The greater cost of GL-PVP compared with bipolar TUVP is an important concern.

Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) for obstructive median lobes: 12 month results of the MedLift Study

Evidence indicating Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL) delivers significant improvement in symptomatic BPH with low morbidity is based on subjects with lateral lobe (LL) enlargement only. MedLift was an FDA IDE extension of the L.I.F.T. randomized study designed to examine safety and efficacy of PUL for treatment of obstructive middle lobes (OML). Inclusion criteria for this non-randomized cohort were identical to the L.I.F.T. randomized study, except for requiring an OML: ≥ 50 years of age, IPSS ≥ 13, and Qmax ≤ 12 ml/s. Primary endpoint analysis quantified improvement in IPSS over baseline and rate of post-procedure serious complications. Quantification of symptom relief, quality of life, flow rate, and sexual function occurred through 12 months. Outcomes were compared to historical L.I.F.T LL results and were combined to demonstrate the full effectiveness of PUL. Of the 71 screened subjects, 45 were enrolled. At 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, mean IPSS improved from baseline at least 13.5 points (p < 0.0001). Quality of life and BPHII were similarly improved (>60% and >70%, respectively at 3, 6, and 12 months, p < 0.0001). Mean Qmax improvement ranged from 90 to 129% (p < 0.0001). At 1 month, 86% (CI 73-94%) reported ≥70 on the Quality of Recovery scale, 80% (CI 66-89%) reported being "much" or "very much better," and 89% (CI 76-95%) would recommend the procedure. Compared to LL subjects, OML subjects' symptoms improved at least as much at every time point (OML range 13.5-15.9, LL range 9.9-11.1, p ≤ 0.01). On combining OML with LL data, >70% (range CI 63-81%) of subjects demonstrated ≥ 8 point improvement in IPSS through 12 months. Analysis of the combined dataset indicates ≥ 40% (CI 30-51%) of sexually active men improved the minimal clinically important difference in erectile function through 12 months. Prostates, including those with middle lobe obstruction, can be treated with the PUL procedure safely and effectively.

Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Therapy Versus Monotherapy in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Colombian Experience

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pharmacological treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia from the payer's perspective.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of 5 mg finasteride, 0.5 mg dutasteride, 10 mg alfuzosin, 10 mg terazosin, 0.4 mg tamsulosin, 4 mg doxazosin, and the combination therapy of 5 mg finasteride and 8 mg doxazosin was evaluated using a Markov model over a 30-year period. The costs were estimated using national tariffs and were reported in US dollars. Cost and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. Men (aged ≥40 years) with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms and uncomplicated benign prostatic hyperplasia were included in the analysis. Outcomes included costs and quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed on important parameters with Monte-Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Finasteride alone or in combination with doxazosin dominated all α-blockers. After excluding dominated alternatives, the incremental cost-utility ratio for combination therapy was $377 per quality-adjusted life-year, being a cost-effective alternative using the threshold of $15 000. Model results were robust to changes in costs, utility weights, and probabilities. Acceptability curves consistently demonstrated that the combination therapy was most likely cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of finasteride and doxazosin is cost-effective compared with dutasteride, tamsulosin, terazosin, and alfuzosin in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with moderate or severe symptoms who are older than 40 years.

[Surgical treatment of BPO: Standard and innovations]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia has dramatically changed in the recent years towards higher proportion of endoscopic treatment and fewer perioperative complications. Nevertheless the question of urinary and sexual quality of life after surgical treatment remains partially unresolved with a high proportion of retrograde ejaculation after conventional surgical treatments. Therefore mini-invasive alternatives to conventional surgery have been proposed. The objective of this literature review was to provide an overview of the alternatives to monopolar TURP currently available in France.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A non-systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted from the PubMed database to retrieve the most relevant scientific publications. A first research was cross-referenced with the results of literature reviews already published and enriched by the authors of this review. A synthesis is proposed for each alternative technique mentioning its level of clinical development, but also its potential advantages and disadvantages compared to conventional surgical techniques.

RESULTS

The quality of life of patients after surgical or interventional management has become the main priority of urologists since the risks of perioperative complication have been reduced by the use of laser or bipolar endoscopic techniques. Thanks to the development of minimally invasive alternatives that are better and better evaluated by randomized trials versus interventional simulation and conventional surgical treatment, more personalized care is possible. Patients' expectations and their individual risk factors can thus be placed at the center of the therapeutic decision and the preoperative information.

CONCLUSION

The surgical and interventional management of LUTS due to BPH has evolved to lower perioperative morbidity with the help of numerous technological developments. Mini-invasive alternatives to standard treatment have also been proposed in order to improve the quality of postoperative sexual life. These alternatives provide significant improvement in LUTS that remains lower than after conventional treatments. Somme of these alternative are also not fully supported by clinical trials, which should urge urologists to act with caution when proposing these alternatives in daily clinical practice.

Pharmacotherapy vs surgery as initial therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using a surgery, such as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or photoselective vaporisation of the prostate using greenlight laser (GL-PVP), as initial treatment for men with moderate-to-severe benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) compared to the standard practice of using pharmacotherapy as initial treatment followed by surgery if symptoms do not resolve.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared a combination of eight strategies involving upfront pharmacotherapy (i.e., α-blocker, 5α-reductase inhibitor, or combination) followed by surgery (e.g. TURP or GL-PVP) upon failure vs TURP or GL-PVP as initial treatment, for a target population of men with moderate-to-severe BPH symptoms, with a mean age of 65 years and no contraindications for treatment. A microsimulation decision-analytic model was developed to project the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the target population over the lifetime. The model was populated and validated using published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a public payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, a discount rate of 1.5%, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 (Canadian dollars)/QALY. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

All options involving an upfront pharmacotherapy followed by TURP for those who fail were economically unattractive compared to strategies involving a GL-PVP for those who fail, and compared to using either BPH surgery as initial treatment. Overall, upfront TURP was the most costly and effective option, followed closely by upfront GL-PVP. On average, upfront TURP costs $1015 more and resulted in a small gain of 0.03 QALYs compared to upfront GL-PVP, translating to an incremental cost per QALY gained of $29 066. Results were robust to probabilistic analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery is cost-effective as initial therapy for BPH. However, the health and economic evidence should be considered concurrently with patient preferences and risk attitudes towards different therapy options.

Prostatic artery embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: protocol for a non-inferiority clinical trial

Background

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a prevalent disease associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The standard of care for moderate-to-severe LUTS unresponsive to pharmacological treatment is the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). However, this intervention is not exempt from complications. Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has been described as a new, effective and safe procedure for the treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH. To date, only one clinical trial has been published on the use of PAE for LUTS, but the study was methodologically flawed in terms of safety monitoring. Therefore, well-designed clinical studies are required to compare the efficacy and safety of both techniques in the treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH.

Methods and design

This was a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety of PAE and TURP in the treatment of BPH-related LUTS. A total of 60 patients diagnosed with BPH with obstructive moderate or severe LUTS refractory to medical therapy and candidates for TURP were randomized to either PAE or TURP. The presence and severity of LUTS were assessed using the validated Spanish version of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Primary end points included improvement in maximum urinary flow rate (Q_max) as measured at baseline and 1 year after the intervention. Improvement in IPSS as measured at baseline and after the intervention, reduction in prostate volume, no deterioration or improvement of sexual function (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF]), reduction in PSA and PVR, satisfaction of the patient with the operation and adverse events occurring during the study were secondary outcome measures.

Discussion

The aim of this clinical study was to investigate whether PAE is a valid therapeutic option for LUTS that is not inferior to TURP in terms of efficacy and safety. This study also helped to define the profile of candidates for PAE and analyzed the benefits and complications associated with this new technique.

Contemporary surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition in adult men and its incidence increases progressively with aging. It has an important impact on the individual's physical and mental health and its natural progression can lead to serious pathological situations. Although the initial treatment is pharmacological, except in specific situations, the tendency of disease progression causes a considerable portion of the patients to require surgical treatment. In this case, there are several options available today in the therapeutic armamentarium. Among the options, established techniques, such as open surgery and endoscopic resection using monopolar energy, still prevail in the choice of surgeons because they are more accessible, both from a socioeconomic standpoint in the vast majority of medical services and in terms of training of medical teams. On the other hand, new techniques and technologies arise sequentially in order to minimize aggression, surgical time, recovery and complications, optimizing results related to the efficacy/safety dyad. Each of these techniques has its own peculiarities regarding availability due to cost, learning curve and scientific consolidation in order to achieve recognition as a cutting-edge method in the medical field. The use of bipolar energy in endoscopic resection of the prostate, laser vaporization and enucleation techniques, and videolaparoscopy are examples of new options that have successfully traced this path. Robot-assisted surgery has gained a lot of space in the last decade, but it still needs to dodge the trade barrier. Other techniques and technologies will need to pass the test of time to be able to conquer their space in this growing market.

Bipolar, Monopolar, Photovaporization of the Prostate, or Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: How to Choose What's Best?

Endoscopic management of benign prostatic obstruction is based on resection, vaporization, or enucleation. Enucleation provides the best efficacy and long-term outcome. Lasers have advantages in patients at high risk of bleeding. Holmium enucleation is the best evaluated technique, but has a steep learning curve. Greenlight photovaporization is a safe alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in prostates of less than 100 mL, especially in patients at high risk of bleeding. Bipolar devices can be used for resection, vaporization, and enucleation and provides efficacy results similar to TURP in the short term with better safety.

Monopolar Transurethral Enucleation of Prostatic Adenoma: Preliminary Report

OBJECTIVE

To describe preliminary results of our monopolar transurethral enucleation of prostatic adenoma (mTUEPA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of male patients treated with mTUEPA, a retrograde enucleation of the prostatic adenoma performed by means of a standard monopolar resectoscope, were prospectively enrolled. Symptoms, uroflowmetry parameters, and post-voiding residual were assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Prostate volume was evaluated at baseline by means of transrectal ultrasound. Antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs were stopped at least 1 week before the operation.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were enrolled. Mean preoperative prostate volume was 64.9 ± 28.5 g. When assessed at baseline, the mean total International Prostatic Symptoms Score was 15.2 ± 3.9, peak flow rate (Qmax) was 8.4 ± 2.9 mL/s and the post-voiding residual was 103.2 ± 90.6 mL. Four weeks after surgery, patients reported a mean International Prostatic Symptoms Score of 5.3 ± 3. This lower urinary tract symptoms relief was further maintained at 6 and 12 months after surgery. A significant postoperative improvement in uroflowmetry parameters was described, being the 6 and 12 months mean Qmax of 23.4 ± 10.6 mL/s and 18.8 ± 9.2 mL/s, respectively (P < .001). Overall, 14 postoperative complications were reported by 13 of 47 (27.6%) patients: most of them were minor complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II), whereas 1 patient reported capsule perforation during surgery, requiring interruption of the procedure and its further completion (Clavien-Dindo IIIb).

CONCLUSION

mTUEPA is a safe and effective technique, merging the principles of laser enucleation and the advantages of mechanical enucleation with standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate equipment.

[S2e guideline of the German urologists: Instrumental treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia]

This report summarizes the relevant aspects of the S2e guideline of the German Urologists for the instrumental treatment of the lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Recommendations are given regarding open and transurethral procedures (TUR-P, bipolar TUR-P, TUI-P, HE-TUMT, TUNA, and the different Laser techniques). Recommendations are also given concerning intraprostatic stents and injection therapies. The influence of the different therapeutic options on bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) is described in detail.

The Urolift System for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

As part of its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Neotract (manufacturer) to submit clinical and economic evidence for their prostatic urethral lift device, Urolift, for the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS BPH). The Urolift System uses implants to retract the prostatic lobe away from the urethral lumen. The clinical evidence used in the manufacturer's submission shows that Urolift is effective for the treatment of BPH. Urolift delivers a weighted mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) improvement of between 9.22 and 11.82 points. These Urolift improvements are greater than a published 'marked improvement' in IPSS score of 8.80. Comparison with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of TURP (Transurethral Resection of Prostate) and HoLEP (Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate) show that Urolift does not yield better clinical outcomes from baseline compared to TURP and HoLEP in terms of IPSS, QoL (Quality of Life) and Qmax (maximum urinary flow). However, Urolift appears to have the advantage in terms of minimal and mild complications, and this may be of interest to patients and urologists. The economic case for Urolift was made using a very detailed and thorough de novo cost model. The base case posed by the manufacturer placed Urolift at almost cost-neutral (£3 cost incurring, based on 2014 prices) compared to TURP, and £418 cost incurring compared to HoLEP. In an additional scenario comparing day-case Urolift with in-patient TURP, the estimated per-patient savings with Urolift were £286 compared with monopolar TURP (mTURP) and £159 compared with bipolar TURP (BiTURP). NICE guidance MTG26 recommends that the case for adoption of Urolift was supported by the evidence, when implemented in a day-case setting.

Monopolar versus bipolar transurethral resection of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Operative outcomes and surgeon preferences, a real-world scenario

Context:

Monopolar transurethral resection of prostate (M-TURP) is considered the gold standard for the management of bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Its newly introduced modification, bipolar TURP (B-TURP), promises to overcome its most prominent shortcomings, namely bleeding and dilutional hyponatremia. Literature is conflicting regarding merits of B-TURP over M-TURP.

Aims:

To find a difference, if any, in perioperative outcomes between M-TURP and B-TURP in a real-wold setting.

Settings and Design:

Prospective nonrandomized study.

Subjects and Methods:

Operative outcomes of patients undergoing M-TURP and B-TURP from February 2014 to October 2015 were compared.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Categorical data were compared by Fischer exact test and numerical data were compared by independent samples Mann–Whitney U-test. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

The mean size of prostate operated by bipolar technology was significantly greater than those operated by monopolar technology (38.12 ± 9.59 cc vs. 66.49 ± 22.95 cc; P < 0.001). The mean fall in postoperative serum sodium concentration was 0.99 ± 0.76 mEq/L for the B-TURP group as compared to 3.60 ± 2.89 mEq/L for the M-TURP group (P < 0.001). The mean drop in postoperative hemoglobin concentration (P = 0.28) was statistically insignificant, even though larger glands were operated by B-TURP. There were three instances of the transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome in the M-TURP group whereas no TUR syndrome occurred in the B-TURP group.

Conclusions:

In spite of various contrary viewpoints in literature, surgeons prefer to operate on larger prostates using bipolar technology. B-TURP definitely reduces the incidence of bleeding and dilutional hyponatremia, making it a contender to replace M-TURP as the new gold standard.

The TURis System for Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

The transurethral resection in saline (TURis) system was notified by the company Olympus Medical to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme. Following selection for medical technologies guidance, the company developed a submission of clinical and economic evidence for evaluation. TURis is a bipolar surgical system for treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement. The comparator is any monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (mTURP) system. Cedar, a collaboration between Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff University and Swansea University in the UK, acted as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE to independently critique the company's submission of evidence. Eight randomised trials provided evidence for TURis, demonstrating efficacy equivalent to that of mTURP for improvement of symptoms. The company presented meta-analyses of key outcome measures, and the EAC made methodological modifications in response to the heterogeneity of the trial data. The EAC analysis found that TURis substantially reduced the relative risks of transurethral resection syndrome (relative risk 0.18 [95 % confidence interval 0.05-0.62]) and blood transfusion (relative risk 0.35 [95 % confidence interval 0.19-0.65]). The company provided a de novo economic model comparing TURis with mTURP. The EAC critiqued the model methodology and made modifications. This found TURis to be cost saving at £70.55 per case for existing Olympus customers and cost incurring at £19.80 per case for non-Olympus customers. When an additional scenario based on the only available data on readmission (due to any cause) from a single trial was modelled, the estimated cost saving per case was £375.02 for existing users of Olympus electrosurgery equipment and £284.66 per case when new Olympus equipment would need to be purchased. Meta-analysis of eight randomised trials showed that TURis is associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of transurethral resection syndrome and a reduced need for blood transfusion-two factors that may drive cost saving for the National Health Service. The clinical data are equivocal as to whether TURis shortens the hospital stay. Limited data from a single study suggest that TURis may reduce the rate of readmission after surgery. The NICE guidance supports adoption of the TURis technology for performing transurethral resection of the prostate in men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement.

Holmium laser enucleation versus laparoscopic simple prostatectomy for large adenomas

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with another minimally invasive technique, the laparoscopic simple prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared outcomes of a series of 40 patients who underwent laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (n=20) with laser enucleation of the prostate (n=20) for large adenomas (>100 grams) at our institution. Study variables included operative time and catheterization time, hospital stay, pre- and post-operative International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum urinary flow rate, complications and economic evaluation. Statistical analyses were performed using the Student t test and Fisher test.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient age, preoperative prostatic size, operating time or specimen weight between the 2 groups. Duration of catheterization (P=.0008) and hospital stay (P<.0001) were significantly less in the laser group. Both groups showed a statistically significant improvement in functional variables at 3 months post operatively. The cost utility analysis for Holmium per case was 2589 euros versus 4706 per laparoscopic case. In the laser arm, 4 patients (20%) experienced complications according to the modified Clavien classification system versus 5 (25%) in the laparoscopic group (P>.99).

CONCLUSION

Holmium enucleation of the prostate has similar short term functional results and complication rates compared to laparoscopic simple prostatectomy performed in large glands with the advantage of less catheterization time, lower economic costs and a reduced hospital stay.

Clinical Results After Prostatic Artery Embolization Using the PErFecTED Technique: A Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has been performed for a few years, but there is no report on PAE using the PErFecTED technique outside from the team that initiated this approach.

OBJECTIVE

This single-center retrospective open label study reports our experience and clinical results on patients suffering from symptomatic BPH, who underwent PAE aiming at using the PErFecTED technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We treated 32 consecutive patients, mean age 65 (52-84 years old) between December 2013 and January 2015. Patients were referred for PAE after failure of medical treatment and refusal or contra-indication to surgery. They were treated using the PErFecTED technique, when feasible, with 300-500 µm calibrated microspheres (two-night hospital stay or outpatient procedure). Follow-up was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

We had a 100% immediate technical success of embolization (68% of feasibility of the PErFecTED technique) with no immediate complications. After a mean follow-up of 7.7 months, we observed a 78% rate of clinical success. Mean IPSS decreased from 15.3 to 4.2 (p = .03), mean QoL from 5.4 to 2 (p = .03), mean Qmax increased from 9.2 to 19.2 (p = .25), mean prostatic volume decreased from 91 to 62 (p = .009) mL. There was no retrograde ejaculation and no major complication.

CONCLUSION

PAE using the PErFecTED technique is a safe and efficient technique to treat bothersome LUTS related to BPH. It is of interest to note that the PErFecTED technique cannot be performed in some cases for anatomical reasons.

The Continuing Story of the Cost-Effectiveness of Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate versus Transuretheral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Obstruction

BACKGROUND

In 2008, a UK assessment of technologies for benign prostatic obstruction concluded negatively about photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), and the 2010 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance caused several UK institutions to abandon PVP.

OBJECTIVE

To reassess the costs and effects of PVP versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on the basis of most recent data.

METHODS

The same model was used as in 2008. Transition probabilities were estimated using a Bayesian approach updating the 2008 estimates with data from two meta-analyses and data from GOLIATH, the latest and largest trial comparing PVP with TURP. Utility estimates were from the 2008 assessment, and estimates of resource utilization and costs were updated. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained, and costs are in UK pounds. The balance between costs and effects was addressed by multivariate sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

If the 2010 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence analysis would have updated the cost-effectiveness analysis with figures from its own meta-analysis, it would have estimated the change in quality-adjusted life-years at -0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.05 to 0.01) instead of at -0.11 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.01) as in the 2008 analysis. The GOLIATH estimate of -0.01 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.02) strengthens the conclusion of near equivalence. Estimates of additional costs vary from £491 (£21-£1286) in 2008 to £111 (-£315 to £595) for 2010 and to £109 (-£204 to £504) for GOLIATH. PVP becomes cost saving if more than 32% can be carried out as a day case in the United Kingdom.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence indicates that PVP can be a cost-effective alternative for TURP in a potentially broad group of patients.

A Review of the Prostatic Urethral Lift for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: Symptom Relief, Flow Improvement, and Preservation of Sexual Function in Men With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) has been shown to be a safe, effective treatment option for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Discomfort with PUL is similar to that with rigid cystoscopy and can be tolerated with local anesthesia in an office setting. Of those who are given voiding trials, 70-80 % of subjects do not require a catheter. Subjects often quickly return to pre-operative activity level with minimal absence from work. Symptom relief can start within 2 weeks and be sustained through 2 years. Urinary flow rate improvements have been shown to be durable through 2 years. The most common adverse effects are dysuria, hematuria, pain, and urgency which are typically mild to moderate and transient. Sexual function appears to be preserved after PUL with no reported new-onset erectile dysfunction or anejaculation events. The retreatment rate is reported to be 7.5 % at 2 years.

Reoperation After Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate for Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Assessment of Risk Factors with Time to Event Analysis

PURPOSE

To determine risk factors of reoperation after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with time to event analysis.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was reviewed for patients undergoing HoLEP. Baseline and follow-up data were compared in terms of International Prostate Symptoms Score, quality of life, peak flow rate, residual urine, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 1, 6, and 12-months and then annually. Perioperative and late adverse events were recorded. Reoperation was defined as the need for any surgical intervention to relieve bothersome LUTS after HoLEP. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine covariates associated with reoperation and the Kaplan-Meier curve assessed the time to reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 1216 HoLEP procedures were performed between March 1998 and October 2013 with a mean prostate volume of 94.8 ± 52.7 cc. Catheter time and hospital stay were 1.4 ± 1.9 and 1.3 ± 1.6 days, respectively. After a median follow-up of 7.6 years (1-14 years), 52 (4.3%) patients needed reoperation for recurrent LUTS, including 13 (1.07%) for residual/recurrent adenoma, 14 (1.15%) for bladder neck contracture (BNC), and 25 (2.05%) for de novo urethral stricture. In multivariate regression, smaller prostate size (< 62 cc), PSA reduction < 50%, and history of previous prostate surgery were significantly associated with recurrence of adenoma. BNC was significantly associated with smaller glands (< 54 cc) while longer operative time and postoperative catheterization were significantly associated with urethral stricture. Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrates post-HoLEP freedom from reoperation of 96.9% at 5 years and 95.1% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In a single center large series, HoLEP has 95% reoperation-free probability at 10 years. Relatively small-size prostate may have an impact on recurrence of adenoma and bladder neck contracture. PSA reduction < 50% was significantly associated with recurrence of adenoma while longer operative time and postoperative catheterization were significantly associated with postoperative urethral stricture.

Prostatic urethral lift improves urinary symptoms and flow while preserving sexual function for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is varied, and significant side effects, particularly concerning sexual function, affect uptake. The prostatic urethral lift (PUL) procedure is a recent addition to the armamentarium for BPH treatment, with independent reports suggesting improvement of symptoms, sexual function, and urinary flow.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of reported symptomatic, functional, and sexual outcomes following the PUL procedure.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a critical review of Medline, Embase, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases in May 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Quality assessment was performed using a modification of the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool. All retrospective, prospective, and controlled trials were included for analysis. Symptom scores, sexual health scores, and functional outcomes were pooled and meta-analysed using quality and random-effects models.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ten articles comprising six independent patient cohorts were included for analysis. Pooled estimates from between 452 and 680 patients suggested overall improvement following PUL, including symptoms (large gain; standardised mean gain range of 1.3-1.6, International Prostate Symptom Score difference of -7.2 to -8.7 points), maximum flow rate (3.8-4.0 ml/s), and quality of life (2.2-2.4 points). Sexual function was preserved with a small improvement estimated at 12 mo (standardised mean gain range of 0.3-0.4). Pooled estimates were mostly heterogeneous across study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PUL is a well-tolerated, minimally invasive therapy for BPH that provides favourable symptom, sexual health, and functional outcomes during follow-up to 12 mo. Longer follow-up and larger randomised studies are required to further confirm these preliminary results.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the early results of an innovative procedure directed towards the management of prostate enlargement. The results revealed a well-tolerated procedure that produces improvement in urinary symptoms and function while preserving sexual function.

Complications after artificial urinary sphincter implantation in patients with or without prior radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To compare complications after implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in patients with or without prior radiotherapy (RT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2011, 160 patients underwent AMS 800 AUS implantation in our institution. We excluded neurological and traumatic causes, implantation on ileal conduit diversion, penoscrotal urethral cuff position and those lost to follow-up. In all, 122 patients were included in the study, 61 with prior RT and 61 without prior RT. All patients underwent the same surgical technique by two different surgeons. All AUS were implanted with a bulbar urethral cuff position. The mean (range) follow-up was 37.25 (1-126) months.

RESULTS

In the patients without prior RT and those with prior RT, revision rates were 32.8% vs 29.5%, respectively (P = 0.59). The median time to first revision was 11.7 months. Early complications were similar in the two groups (4.9% vs 6.5%, P = 1). Erosion rates were not significantly different (4.9% vs 13.1%, P = 0.13). However, infection and explantation were more prevalent in patients with prior RT [two (3.2%) vs 10 (16.3%), P = 0.018 and three (4.9%) vs 12 (19.6%), P = 0.016, respectively]. Finally, continence rates were not significantly different [75.4% (without prior RT) vs 63.9% (with prior RT), P = 0.23].

CONCLUSION

AUS is the 'gold standard' treatment of male urinary incontinence after re-education failure in patients with or without prior RT. Our experience showed similar functional outcomes in both groups but a higher rate of major complications in the group with prior RT.

GreenLight™ laser (XPS) photoselective vapo-enucleation versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

After the advent of the GreenLight XPS™ (180 W) 532 nm laser, photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate could compete with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate as a size independent procedure. We assessed whether photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate-XPS is not less effective than holmium laser enucleation of prostate for improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled noninferiority trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate to photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate-XPS 180 W was conducted. I-PSS, flow rate, residual urine, prostate specific antigen and prostate volume changes as well as perioperative and late adverse events were compared. Noninferiority of I-PSS at 1 year was evaluated using a 1-sided test at 5% level of significance. The statistical significance of other comparators was assessed at the (2-sided) 5% level.

RESULTS

Overall 50 and 53 patients were included in the holmium laser enucleation and photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate groups, respectively. Operative time, hospital stay and time to catheter removal were comparable between the groups. There was significant, comparable improvement in I-PSS and post-void residual urine volume at 1, 4 and 12 months. After 4 months prostate size reduction was significantly higher in the holmium laser enucleation of prostate group (74.3% vs 43.1%, p=0.001). At 12 months maximum urine flow rate was significantly higher in the holmium laser enucleation of prostate group (26.4 ±11.5 vs 18.4 ±7.5 ml per second, p=0.03). Re-intervention was needed in 2 and 3 cases in the holmium laser enucleation and photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate groups, respectively (p=1.0). Mean estimated cost per holmium laser enucleation of prostate procedure was significantly lower than per photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to holmium laser enucleation of prostate, GreenLight XPS laser photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate is safe, noninferior and effective in treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a review of the clinical trial evidence

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has remained the procedure of choice for the surgical treatment of bladder outflow obstruction for almost five decades, but holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is now emerging as a challenger as the gold standard procedure. This review summarizes the evidence base for HoLEP, with particular reference to randomized, controlled (level 1) evidence.

Salvage Holmium laser enucleation of prostate to treat residual benign prostatic hyperplasia

INTRODUCTION

The Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) technique to remove residual adenoma has not been reported. Salvage HoLEP enables anatomical enucleation of residual adenoma in patients who have previously undergone surgical treatment. We describe not only anatomical insights into the frequent location of adenoma recurrence, but also the feasibility of the salvage HoLEP technique.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a database containing HoLEP video records for 35 patients out of a total of 535 individuals on whom HoLEP was performed by 2 surgeons (SJO & JSP) between July 2008 and June 2011. Group 1 consisted of patients who underwent salvage HoLEP due to recurring adenoma and Group 2 of patients who underwent HoLEP as an initially surgical management to treat benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). We compared the dataset of pre-, intra- and postoperative parameters between Groups 1 and 2.

RESULTS

In the analysis of the video records of Group 1 (n = 35), there was significant remnant tissue around the verumontanum and the lateral lobes were also incompletely removed by previous conventional procedures. When we compared pre-, intra- and postoperative parameters between the 2 groups, there were no significant differences, including operation time, duration of hospital stay. However, the duration of the catheterization of Group 1 was shorter than that of Group 2 (1.38 ± 0.55 vs. 1.90 ± 1.81 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Even for cases of residual BPH, salvage HoLEP is a feasible and effective procedure for treating residual adenoma along the anatomical plane.

Surgical therapy for benign prostatic hypertrophy/bladder outflow obstruction

Monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with endoscopic electrocautery remains the gold standard surgical technique for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) by which all new procedures are compared. We reviewed the current literature, and international urological guidelines and consensus opinion on various surgical options for BPH and present a brief overview of alternative techniques including bipolar TURP, transurethral incision of the prostate, transurethral vaporization of the prostate, laser prostatectomy (with holmium, thulium and potassium titanyl phosphate greenlight lasers) and open prostatectomy (with mention of new techniques including laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy). Emerging, experimental and less established techniques are also described including endoscopic heat generation (transurethral microwave thermotherapy, radiofrequency transurethral needle ablation of the prostate, high intensity focused ultrasound, hot water induced thermotherapy, pulsed electromagnetic radiofrequency), injection therapy (transurethral ethanol ablation and botulinum toxin) and mechanical devices (intraprostatic stents and urethral lift devices). Despite a plethora of surgical options, none have realistically improved outcomes in the long-term compared with TURP. Improvements have been made on improving surgical morbidity and time in hospital. Questions remain in this area, including what specific elements of bladder outflow obstruction (BOO) result in damage to the urinary tract, how does BPH contribute to BOO and how much prostate volume reduction is necessary to relieve BOO or lower urinary tract symptoms. Given these unanswered questions and the multitude of procedures available, it is clear that appropriate counselling is necessary in all men who undergo BPH surgery.

[Up-to-date on the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Which adenoma to treat and how to do it?]

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is a state of the nature rather than a disease. It affects mainly men over 50 years and represents a public health problem. A literature review on the therapeutic management of benign prostatic hyperplasia was carried out from a selection of publications with the highest level of evidence. Medical treatment is based on herbal medicine, alpha-blockers and 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors. Surgical treatment is used in case of complications or failure of medical management. Surgical options are numerous. Transurethral prostate resection and prostate adenomectomy are the most usual procedures. Due to their significant morbidity, other less invasive procedures have recently been developed. The choice of treatment will depend on prostate volume and anatomy and patient's comorbidities.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of bipolar compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)

To compare monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for clinical effectiveness and adverse events. We conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and also searched reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monopolar and bipolar TURP. Two reviewers independently undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials using the tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. From the 949 abstracts that were identified, 94 full texts were assessed for eligibility and a total of 24 trials were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or health-related quality of life (HRQL) score. Results for maximum urinary flow rate were significant at 3, 6 and 12 months (all P < 0.001), but no clinically significant differences were found and the meta-analysis showed evidence of heterogeneity Bipolar TURP was associated with fewer adverse events including transurethral resection syndrome (risk ratio [RR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.31, P < 0.001), clot retention (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.77, P = 0.002) and blood transfusion (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.82, P = 0.004) Several major methodological limitations were identified in the included trials; 22/24 trials had a short follow-up of ≤1 year, there was no evidence of a sample size calculation in 20/24 trials and the application of GRADE showed the evidence for most of the assessed outcomes to be of moderate quality, including all those in which statistical differences were found. Whilst there is no overall difference between monopolar and bipolar TURP for clinical effectiveness, bipolar TURP is associated with fewer adverse events and therefore has a superior safety profile. Various methodological limitations were highlighted in the included trials and as such the results of this review should be interpreted with caution. There is a need for further well-conducted, multicentre RCTs with long-term follow-up data.

Introducing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate alongside transurethral resection of the prostate improves outcomes of each procedure

INTRODUCTION

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is recognised as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). HoLEP has been demonstrated to be at least as effective as TURP with less morbidity but its introduction to practice has been limited in part by the learning curve of a novel procedure. This study examined the effects of introducing HoLEP alongside an established practice of TURP on early morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent HoLEP and TURP between April 2007 and July 2011 was undertaken. HoLEP was introduced in April 2008; patients undergoing TURP before this were considered as a historical control group. Data were collected concerning resection/enucleation weight, blood transfusions and LOS.

RESULTS

Overall, 772 patients underwent HoLEP or TURP within the 52-month study period: 164 underwent TURP prior to the introduction of HoLEP (TURP-A), 425 had TURP after the introduction of HoLEP (TURP-B) and 183 underwent HoLEP. The mean removed weight was 24g (standard deviation [SD]: 21g) for TURP-A, 19g for TURP-B (SD: 16g) and 38g (SD: 32g) for HoLEP (p<0.005). Blood transfusion rates were 5.5%, 2.2% and 1.6% for the TURP-A, TURP-B and HoLEP groups respectively (p<0.05). For TURP-A patients, the mean LOS was 5.6 days (SD: 3.5 days, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.3-6.0 days). The mean LOS for TURP-B patients was 4.4 days (SD: 4.4 days, 95% CI: 4.2-4.8 days). HoLEP patients had a mean LOS of 3.0 days (SD: 3.0 days, 95% CI: 2.6-3.4 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of HoLEP alongside TURP is associated with lower rates of blood transfusion and shorter LOS for all patients. This is likely to be due to the use of HoLEP rather than TURP in patients with larger prostates, who are more likely to have complications.

Cost-effectiveness of dutasteride-tamsulosin combination therapy for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: A Canadian model based on the CombAT trial

INTRODUCTION

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is common in men 50 years old and older. The main treatment options are alpha-blockers (such as tamsulosin), which reduce symptoms, and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (such as dutasteride), which reduce symptoms and slow disease progression. Clinical studies have demonstrated that dutasteride-tamsulosin combination therapy is more effective than either monotherapy to treat symptomatic BPH. We studied the cost-effectiveness in Canada of the dutasteride (0.5 mg/day) and tamsulosin (0.4 mg/day) combination compared with tamsulosin or dutasteride monotherapy.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed which follows a cohort of male BPH patients ≥50 with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The model estimates costs to the Canadian health care system and outcomes (in terms of quality adjusted life years [QALYs]) at 10 years and over a patient's lifetime. The dutasteride-tamsulosin combination was compared to each of tamsulosin monotherapy and dutasteride monotherapy.

RESULTS

Compared with tamsulosin, the combination was more costly and produced better patient outcomes. Over a lifetime, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CAN$25 437 per QALY gained. At a willingness to pay CAN$50 000 per QALY, the probability of combination therapy being cost-effective was 99.6%. Compared with dutasteride, the combination therapy was the dominant option from year 2, offering improved patient outcomes at lower cost. The probability that combination therapy is more cost-effective than dutasteride was 99.8%.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy offers important clinical benefits for patients with symptomatic BPH, and there is a high probability that it is cost-effective in the Canadian health care system relative to either monotherapy.