What is the effect of laser anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate on the ejaculatory functions? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Laser anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (LAEEP) has emerged as a promising new approach in endoscopic surgery for BPH. LAEEP could still result in ejaculatory dysfunction.

AIM

This systematic review aimed to examine the impact of LAEEP on male ejaculatory functions.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, and 15 records were included. Outcomes of interest included ejaculatory dysfunction (retrograde ejaculation, painful ejaculation, etc.) and validated questionnaire scores. The quality of studies included in the systematic review was determined using QUADAS scoring.

RESULTS

We retrieved data for 1877 men in 15 clinical studies investigating LAEEP surgery and reporting EjD rates. While only three of the obtained studies were on thulium fiber (ThuLEP), the rest were on holmium (HoLEP). The definition of "Ejaculatory Dysfunction" was not standardized, but in most works, it is referred to as retrograde ejaculation (RE). There were no data on the relationship between other LAEEP techniques and ejaculation functions. The authors compared the outcomes of used standard laser enucleation techniques with the modified techniques. The RE rate in LAEEP was 62.1 ± 25.1%, 71.3 ± 16.1% in standard techniques, and 27.2 ± 18.1% in ejaculation-preserving modified techniques (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrated that ejaculation-preserving techniques, i.e., modified techniques are superior to standard techniques. Studies have also shown that ejaculatory dysfunction rates gradually decrease with long-term follow-ups. Future well-designed studies could further investigate the ejaculation-preserving modification of LAEEP techniques and how they impact EjD rates and other sexual function outcomes.

Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate Is Better than Robot-assisted Simple Prostatectomy

In 2022, endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) is the treatment of choice for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) for glands >80 ml and is a valid alternative for patients with bleeding disorders. Unlike robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, EEP has no additional access-related trauma and can be performed using the same instruments as for bipolar enucleoresection. With favorable costs, EEP can serve as a global solution for BPO treatment.

A call for HoLEP: AEEP for mega-prostates (≥ 200 cc)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficiency and efficacy of HoLEP, and methods of tissue retrieval, in patients with prostate volume (PV) ≥ 200 cc (Group 1) and to compare these to patients with PV 80-199 cc (Group 2).

METHODS

A database of all cases performed under the care of two surgeons at a tertiary HoLEP centre was reviewed.

RESULTS

157 patients with PV ≥ 200 cc were compared to 157 of the most recent consecutive cases with PV 80-199 cc. Median (IQR) enucleation efficiency was greater in Group 1 [2.8 g/min (2.2-3.5)] than Group 2 [2.1 g/min (1.6-2.5), p < 0.001]. Morcellation efficiency did not differ significantly. Cystotomy was required for tissue retrieval in Group 1 only (5.7%). Decrease in serum haemoglobin (Hb) was greater in Group 1 (19 g/l (30-8) vs 12 (18-3.5), p < 0.001) with a transfusion rate of 4.5% vs 1.3%, respectively (p = 0.104). Length of stay was longer in Group 1 than Group 2 (1 day (1-2) vs 1 (1-1), p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in: time to and success of first trial without catheter, pre- and post-operative IPSS, Qmax and PVR, and 3 month catheter-free and urinary incontinence rates.

CONCLUSION

HoLEP outcomes are largely PV-independent even when PV is ≥ 200 cc, although length of stay and reduction in Hb are greater in this group. Alternatives to pure morcellation, such as cystotomy and resection of nodules, are more likely to be necessary with PV ≥ 200 cc.

HoLEP for acute and non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention: how effective is it?

PURPOSE

To determine catheter status within 3 months of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for acute and non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention (AUR and NNCUR), to compare short-term outcomes of HoLEP for urinary retention (UR) versus lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), and to report long-term serum creatinine (SC) after HoLEP for high-pressure chronic urinary retention (HPCUR).

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of the first 500 consecutive HoLEP cases performed under the care of a single surgeon was analysed retrospectively. Urodynamic studies (UDS) did not play a role in the decision making process for those with UR. NNCUR was defined as painless, with post-void residual volume (PVR) greater than 300 ml in men able to void and initial catheter drainage > 1000 ml in men unable to void.

RESULTS

280/500 (56%) were in UR: AUR (195), and NNCUR (85) including 22 with HPCUR. The UR cohort were older with higher enucleated tissue weight [median (IQR); 72 years (66-79 year) and 56 g (29.8-86.3 g)], than the LUTS cohort [70 years (64-75 year) and 38 g (18-67 g)] (p < 0.001). 98.9% with AUR and 98.8% with NNCUR were catheter-free 3 months after HoLEP. There were no significant differences in transfusion rates, hospital stay, or time to first trial without catheter (TWOC) between the LUTS and UR cohorts, nor in international prostate symptom score and quality of life scores, maximum urinary flow rate, post void residual volume or urinary incontinence at 3 months. Patients with NNCUR were less likely to pass their first TWOC (58.8%) than those with AUR (84.6%) or LUTS (87.7%), p < 0.001. None with HPCUR had a clinically significant deterioration in SC at a median of 60 months (IQR 36-82 months).

CONCLUSION

HoLEP has 3-month catheter-free rates in excess of 98.5% for AUR and NNCUR in patients not pre-selected by UDS. First TWOC is significantly more likely to fail after HoLEP for NNCUR than AUR or LUTS. HoLEP is a durable treatment for HPCUR and there is no need to monitor renal function to detect recurrence.

Lasers in Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate-Do We Really Need Them

The acronym EEP, coding for transurethral Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate, was introduced in 2016 by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines panel on management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Since then, a laser-based treatment, Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP), and the current-based treatment of bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP) are equally appreciated as valuable options for the management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This was mainly inspired by the results of two meta-analyses on randomized controlled trials, comparing open prostatectomy with either Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) or bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP). Prior to that, HoLEP was embraced as the only valid option for transurethral enucleation, although evidence for equivalence existed as early as 2006, but was not recognized due to a plethora of acronyms for bipolar energy-based treatments and practiced HoLEP-centrism. On the other hand, the academic discourse focused on different (other) laser approaches that came up, led by Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) Vapoenucleation (ThuVEP) in 2009 and, finally, transurethral anatomical enucleation with Tm:YAG support (thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuLEP) in 2010. Initially, the discourse on lasers focused on the different properties of lasers rather than technique or surgical anatomy, respectively. In and after 2016, the discussion ultimately moved towards surgical technique and accepting anatomical preparation as the common of all EEP techniques (AEEP). Since then, the unspoken question has been raised, whether lasers are still necessary to perform EEP in light of existing evidence, given the total cost of ownership (TCO) for these generators. This article weighs the current evidence and comes to the conclusion that no evidence of superiority of one modality over another exists with regard to any endpoint. Therefore, in the sense of critical importance, AEEP can be safely and effectively performed without laser technologies and without compromise.