Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Endoscopic Surgical Procedures in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Comparison Between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate, GreenLight Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate, and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate

Prevalence of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms after kidney transplantation

OBJECTIVE

This review investigates the prevalence of male non-neurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after renal transplant, as kidney transplantation is a transformative intervention for patients with end-stage renal disease significantly enhancing quality of life that might be diminished by LUTS.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. A systematic search in the PubMed and Scopus databases was performed using specific terms. Inclusion criteria considered male kidney transplant recipients, analysing outcomes in English-language studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consultation.

RESULTS

Among 18 studies involving 29 086 recipients, the prevalence of non-neurogenic LUTS ranged from 5.8% to 33.0%. Studies predominantly used the International Prostate Symptom Score for evaluation. Surgical interventions, mostly for benign prostatic obstruction, ranged from 2.5% to 20.0%. Voiding and post-micturition symptoms were under-represented.

CONCLUSION

This review found varied non-neurogenic LUTS prevalence and characteristics in male kidney transplant recipients, emphasising the need for standardised assessments, prospective studies, and improved understanding of LUTS mechanisms. Enhanced knowledge can guide interventions, additionally benefiting recipient quality of life.

Reoperation after surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review

Context

Surgical treatment is important for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) management, but there are few reviews of the risks of reoperation.

Objective

To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the reoperation rates of surgical treatment for LUTS in accordance with current recommendations and guidelines.

Evidence acquisition

Eligible studies published up to July 2023, were searched for in the PubMed® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA) databases. STATA® (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled incidences (PIs) of reoperation and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Evidence synthesis

A total of 119 studies with 130,106 patients were included. The reoperation rate of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 4.0%, 5.0%, 6.0%, and 7.7%, respectively. The reoperation rate of plasma kinetic loop resection of the prostate (PKRP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.5%, 3.6%, 5.7%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.4%, 3.3%, 5.4%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.3%, 4.1%, 6.7%, and 7.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of surgery with AquaBeam® at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.6%, 3.1%, 3.0%, and 4.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 12.2%, 20.0%, 26.4%, and 23.8%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 9.9%, 19.9%, 23.3%, and 31.2%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) at 5 years was 13.4%. The reoperation rate of open prostatectomy (OP) at 1 and 5 years was 1.3% and 4.4%, respectively. The reoperation rate of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) at 1, 2, and 5 years was 3.7%, 7.7%, and 8.4%, respectively.

Conclusion

Our results summarized the reoperation rates of 10 surgical procedures over follow-up durations of 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, which could provide reference for urologists and LUTS patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023445780.

Current Evidence on Surgical Management for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Renal Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review

Background: Patients who have undergone renal transplant may have a concomitant benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), a condition that can potentially hinder the recovery of the renal graft and necessitate surgical intervention. However, endoscopic treatment of BPH should be performed carefully because of the associated perioperative risks. We aimed to systematically assess the factors affecting surgical indications and perioperative outcomes of BPH surgical treatment in renal transplantation (RT) recipients. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on January 28, 2023, using Scopus, PubMed, and EMBASE with no date limit. Preclinical and animal studies, reviews, letters to the editor, case reports, and meeting abstracts were excluded. Results: Eighteen articles were accepted and included. Clinical BPH has a high incidence rate after RT, particularly in elderly men. Secondary events associated with BPH, such as acute urinary retention and urinary tract infections, can lead to a gradual decline of renal graft function and patient survival. BPH procedure can prevent these events and guarantee improvements in serum creatinine levels, voiding parameters, and lower urinary tract symptoms. When the urine culture is negative, the endoscopic procedure of the prostate may be performed within 1 month of the initial procedure, particularly in older patients, more prone to develop voiding dysfunction. Alternatively, a transurethral incision of the prostate may be recommended for patients with smaller prostates who wish to preserve ejaculatory function. Data on comparative BPH surgical procedures are lacking. Conclusions: BPH procedure should be offered in RT recipients who develop bladder outlet obstruction owing to BPH. Endoscopic treatment should be performed after a few weeks from RT to avoid further graft deterioration.

Shifting Trends in Prostate Treatment: A Systematic Review Comparing Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate

Our systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and suitability of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) as a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in comparison to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). We analyzed 12 studies involving male participants aged 45-85 years, all of whom had BPH. In our analysis, we compared HoLEP and TURP, with a focus on several primary outcomes, including postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), postvoid residual (PVR) volume, maximum flow rate (Qmax), and changes in sexual function post-treatment. HoLEP demonstrated advantages in certain aspects when compared to TURP. HoLEP generally resulted in an improved postoperative IPSS in some studies, but not all studies showed a significant difference when compared to TURP. HoLEP was associated with improved Qmax in most studies, but one study found no significant difference between HoLEP and TURP. Patients who underwent HoLEP showed improvement in the PVR volume in some studies, while others found no significant change in the PVR volume with either HoLEP or TURP. Some studies reported a reduction in orgasm and ejaculatory scores following TURP, while no significant changes were observed in erectile function, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction scores. It is worth noting that previous reviews and meta-analyses had limited data on the effects of HoLEP and TURP on sexual dysfunction. TURP is associated with a higher risk of morbidity and mortality, which has led to its replacement with HoLEP as the gold standard for treating BPH, particularly due to its size-independent applicability. HoLEP also demonstrated greater efficacy in the postoperative period.

Evaluation of Renal Function Recovery After Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has become a new surgical gold standard treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). It is known that untreated BPH can lead to bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). A positive correlation exists between BOO and chronic kidney disease (CKD), but stability or recovery of renal function after HoLEP remains unknown. We sought to describe changes in renal function after HoLEP in men with CKD. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of patients who underwent HoLEP with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) <60, CKD stages III to V. Pre- and postoperative GFRs were selected within 3 months before the operation and within 1 year postoperatively. The presence of an indwelling catheter, preoperative hydronephrosis, history of kidney stones, and prostate size were also reviewed. Data were analyzed in accordance with preoperative CKD stage. Results: Of the reviewed patients, 138 met inclusion criteria with CKD stages III to V. Each CKD group was without significant postoperative complications. There was a significant increase between pre- and postoperative GFR for patients in CKD stages III (n = 116) and IV (n = 17) (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.010, respectively). The mean increase between pre- and postoperative GFR for the CKD stages III and IV patients were 6.4 and 6.49, respectively. There was no correlation between presence of preoperative hydronephrosis, history of kidney stones, catheter dependency, nor prostate size on change in postoperative GFR (p > 0.05). Conclusion: These findings suggest that patients in CKD stages III or IV undergoing HoLEP experience an increase in GFR. It is noteworthy that there appears to be no decline in renal function postoperatively in any group. HoLEP represents an excellent surgical option for patients with preoperative CKD and may prevent further renal decline.

Enucleation vs vaporization of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a head-to-head comparison of the various outcomes and complications. A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Vaporization of the prostate (VP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are reliable and frequently used methods for BPO relief. Both surgeries utilize lasers and EAU recommends them in similar patient cohorts. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative results of patients who had undergone VP and EEP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was performed in three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus). The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero, CRD42020204739. Primary outcomes were functional results (IPSS, QoL, PVR, Qmax), and secondary outcomes were intraoperative results, postoperative PSA and prostate volume, complications, and recurrence rate.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

VP required less operative time compared to EEP, mean difference=-5.51 (95%CI -7.52; -3.50). IPSS and Qmax for VP were worse after 12-month follow-up, mean difference=0.89 (95%CI 0.52; 1.27) and -3.7 (95%CI -4.56; -2.85), respectively, while QoL did not differ significantly. Postoperative PSA level was higher in the VP group, mean difference=2.28 (95%CI 2.00; 2.55). VP was associated with reduced Clavien-Dindo grade I (OR=4.16; 95%CI 2.96; 5.84) and grade II (OR=3.79; 95%CI 2.25; 6.39) complication rate, especially in terms of the percentage of blood transfusion and transient urinary incontinence. The rate of complications grade IIIa and higher was similar (3 - 6%). Reoperation rate was only estimated in one study and was significantly higher in the PVP group at 60 months of follow-up, 2.7% vs 0%, p<0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

EEP and VP share the efficacy and safety in BPH management. Our meta-analysis shows comparable complication rate in Clavien-Dindo III, VP superiority in operation time, and EEP superiority in long-term functional outcomes and PSA reduction.

Endoscopic enucleation vs endoscopic vaporization procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia: how should we choose: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of different endoscopic procedures of the prostate techniques, by comparing endoscopic enucleation (EEP) and endoscopic vaporization procedures (EVP) of the prostate; and laser enucleation procedures (L-EEP) vs laser vaporization procedures (L-EVP) surgeries for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed in December 2019 using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. Two analyses were carried out: (1) EEP vs EVP; and (2) L-EEP vs L-EVP. Efficacy and safety were evaluated using perioperative data, functional outcomes, including maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QoL), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), postvoiding residual urine volume (PRV), and rate of complications. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan5.3.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (4907 patients) evaluated EEP vs EVP, and 12 of them (4392 patients) evaluated L-EEP vs L-EVP. EEP showed improved functional outcomes compared with EVP. EEP was always presented a better Qmax at various follow-up times. EEP also associated with a reduced PRV and IPSS at 12 months postsurgery, an increased Qmax, and reduced IPSS and QoL score at both 24 and 36 months postsurgery. In addition, EEP was associated with less total energy utilized and retreatment for residual adenoma, but a longer catheterization time. Among other outcomes, there was no significant difference. L-EEP favors total energy used, retreatment for residual adenoma, and functional outcomes. L-EEP was associated with reduced PRV at 1, 6, and 12 months postsurgery, a greater Qmax at 6 and 12 months postsurgery, a lower IPSS at 12 months postsurgery, and higher Qmax and lower IPSS and QoL scores at 24 and 36 months postsurgery. However, there was no difference at 3 months postsurgery. No significant differences were observed for other perioperative data and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EEP and EVP displayed sufficient efficacy and safety for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. EEP and L-EEP were favored in perioperative data, rate of complications, and functional outcomes. However, the clinical significance of those statistical differences was unclear. Hence, higher-quality randomized controlled trials may be needed to provide a clear algorithm.