Efficacy and safety profile of GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate in ≥ 75 years old patients: results from the Italian GreenLight Laser Study Group

BACKGROUND

Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) is the most common non-malignant urological condition among men and its incidence rise with age. Among prostate treatments, GreenLight laser seems to reduce bleeding and would be safer in the aging population.

AIMS

We aimed to compare the functional outcomes and safety profile of < 75 years old (Group A) and ≥ 75 years old (Group B) patients.

METHODS

In a multicenter setting, we retrospectively analyzed all the patients treated with GreenLight Laser vaporization of the prostate (PVP).

RESULTS

1077 patients were eligible for this study. 757 belonged to Group A (median age 66 years) and 320 to Group B (median age 78 years). No differences were present between the two groups in terms of prostate volume, operative time, hospital stay, PSA decrease over time after surgery, complications and re-intervention rate with a median follow-up period of 18 months (IQR 12-26). Nevertheless, focusing on complications, GreenLight laser PVP demonstrated an excellent safety profile in terms of hospital stay, re-intervention and complications, with an overall 29.6% complication rate in older patients and only two cases of Clavien III. Functional outcomes were similar at 12 month and became in favor of Group A over time. These data are satisfactory with a Qmax improvement of 111.7% and an IPSS reduction of 69.5% in older patients.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate is a safe and efficient procedure for all patients, despite their age, with comparable outcomes and an equal safety profile.

“Zero ischemia” laparoscopic partial nephrectomy by high-power GreenLight laser enucleation for renal carcinoma: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy has been widely used in renal cell carcinoma treatment. The efficacy of GreenLight laser on Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is still unknown.

AIM

To present the first series of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) by GreenLight laser enucleation without renal artery clamping. Due to the excellent coagulation and hemostatic properties of the laser, laser-assisted LPN (LLPN) makes it possible to perform a “zero ischemia” resection.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with T1a exogenous renal tumors who received high-power GreenLight laser non-ischemic LPN in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. All clinical information, surgical and post-operative data, complications, pathological and functional outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Surgery was successfully completed in all patients, and no open or radical nephrectomy was performed. The renal artery was not clamped, leading to no ischemic time. No blood transfusions were required, the average hemoglobin level ranged from 96.0 to 132.0 g/L and no postoperative complications occurred. The mean operation time was 104.3 ± 8.2 min. The postoperative removal of negative pressure drainage time ranged from 5.0 to 7.0 d, and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.5 ± 0.7 d. No serious complications occurred. Postoperative pathological results showed clear cell carcinoma in 12 patients, papillary renal cell carcinoma in 2 patients, and hamartoma in 1 patient. The mean creatinine level was 75.0 ± 0.8 μmol/L (range 61.0-90.4 μmol/L) at 1 mo after surgery, and there were no statistically significant differences compared with pre-operation (P > 0.05). The glomerular filtration rate ranged from 45.1 to 60.8 mL/min, with an average of 54.0 ± 5.0 mL/min, and these levels were not significantly different from those before surgery (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

GreenLight laser has extraordinary cutting and sealing advantages when used for small renal tumors (exogenous tumors of stage T1a) during LPN. However, use of this technique can lead to the generation of excessive smoke.

Proctored Step by Step Training Program for GreenLight Laser Anatomic Photovaporization of the Prostate: A Single Surgeon's Experience

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of a proctored step-by-step training program for GreenLight laser anatomic photovaporization (aPVP) of the prostate. Methods: Data from patients undergoing aPVP between January 2019 and December 2020 operated by a single surgeon following a dedicated step-by-step proctored program were prospectively collected. The procedure was divided into five modular steps of increasing complexity. Preoperative patients' data as well as total operative time, energy delivered on the prostate and postoperative data, were recorded. Then, we assessed how the overall amount of energy delivered and the operative times varied during the training program. Surgical steps were analyzed by cumulative summation. Univariable and multivariable regression models were built to assess the predictors of the amount of energy delivered on the prostate. Results: Sixty consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Median prostate volume was 56.5 mL. The training program was succesfully completed with no intraoperative or meaningful post-operative complications. The energy delivered reached the plateau after the 40th case. At multivariable analysis, increasing surgeon experience was associated with lower amounts of energy delivered as well as lower operative times. Conclusions: A step-by-step aPVP training program can be safely performed by surgeons with prior endoscopic experience if mentored by a skilled proctor. Considering the energy delivered as an efficacy surrogate metrics (given its potential impact on persistent postoperative LUTS), 40 cases are needed to reach a plateau for aPVP proficiency. Further studies are needed to assess the safety of our step-by-step training modular program in other clinical contexts.

Influence of the median lobe on the results at 4 years of the prostate vaporization by GreenLight laser

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the influence of a median lobe (ML) on complications and functional results after 4 years of GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP).

METHODS

All men undergoing GreenLight PVP for benign prostatic hyperplasia were included in the baseline analysis and followed prospectively. Two groups were formed according to the presence or absence of the prostatic ML. Complications classified according Clavien and Dindo and functional results (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS], quality of life, maximum urinary flow rate [Qmax], and postvoid residual [PVR]) were evaluated with 4 years of follow-up. The pre- and postoperative data were compared by a chi-square test (χ² ) for the qualitative variables and by a Student t test for the quantitative variables.

RESULTS

A total of 432 patients (172 with ML and 260 without ML) were included prospectively from September 2005 to October 2013. The initial populations were comparable. At 4 years of follow-up, the improvement in mean IPSS was significantly greater for patients with ML at 6, 12, 24, and 48 months. The improvement in Qmax was significantly greater for patients with ML at 1, 6, 24, and 48 months. There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning the PVR reduction, the occurrence of complications, the level of average prostate-specific antigen, and the average ultrasound volume at 4 years.

CONCLUSION

There is a clearer and longer-lasting improvement in urinary symptoms in patients with prostatic ML. The indication of PVP in those patients seems to be excellent, with good results persisting at 4 years.

Ejaculatory Hood-Sparing Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate vs Bipolar Button Plasma Vaporization of the Prostate in the Surgical Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Introduction and Objectives: After transurethral prostatectomy, erectile dysfunction and ejaculatory dysfunction are significant concerns for patients. We compared ejaculatory hood-sparing technique in patients who underwent photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the GreenLight Laser (EjS-PVP) with the ejaculatory hood-sparing technique in patients who underwent bipolar button plasma vaporization of the prostate (EjS-BPVP) in the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven patients were randomized to either undergo EjS-PVP or EjS-BPVP from August 2016 to March 2018. All of the patients were sexually active with antegrade ejaculation before prostatectomy. We evaluated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), peak flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), International Index of Erectile Function and ejaculatory function by the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ). Men were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was ejaculation preservation measured as no change or preservation in antegrade ejaculate at the last follow-up visit by MSHQ (6 months). Results: Twenty-seven patients with a mean age of 65.6 ± 8.4 years underwent either EjS-BPVP or EjS-PVP (Table 1). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Improvements in IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR were durable throughout the study period in both groups. There was no difference in outcomes between groups. Postoperatively, there was no change in ejaculatory function with EjS-BPVP utilizing either 180 W EjS-PVP or bipolar energy. The change in MSHQ Ejaculation Scale was -2.1 and -5.4 at 6 months in both arms. The 6-month ejaculatory preservation rate was 85% in the EjS-PVP group and 78% in the EjS-BPVP group. Conclusions: EjS GreenLight photoselective vaporization and bipolar plasma button vaporization is a safe and effective method for treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to BPH with maintenance of antegrade ejaculation.

GreenLight Laser photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate with front-firing emission versus plasmakinetic resection of the prostate for benign prostate hyperplasia

Background

Although the conventional, monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has proven to be an effective and relatively safe treatment for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), many new endoscopic technologies have been introduced to treat BPH. With the development of laser, there are several alternative transurethral procedures embracing laser therapies. Herein, this study sought to explore the efficacy, safety and follow-up of GreenLight laser photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate (PVEP) with front-firing emission compared with plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) used to surgically manage BPH.

Methods

Data from patients who underwent either GreenLight laser PVEP or PKRP were retrospectively collected from March 2013 to May 2018. Perioperative data from both groups were compared.

Results

Totally, 43 and 45 patients were included in the PVEP and PKRP groups, respectively. No significant difference was observed in excision efficiency ratio (resected prostate weight/operation time) between the two groups (P=0.372). The efficiency ratio of the first 20 PVEP procedures (0.36±0.09 g/min) was significantly lower than that of the second 23 PVEP procedures (0.45±0.18 g/min) (P=0.042). The PVEP group experienced a shorter duration of catheterization, postoperative hospital stay and irrigation time than the PKRP group (P<0.001, P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P=0.937) in terms of overall postoperative complications. Three months after surgery, the international prostate symptoms (IPSS) score, quality of life (QOL) score, postvoid residual (PVR) volume and maximum urinary flow rate (Q_max) were decreased in both groups (P<0.001 for all) and were comparable between both groups (P=0.635, 0.662, 0.671 and 0.924, respectively).

Conclusions

GreenLight laser PVEP with front-firing emission was safe and effective modality in treating patients with BPH with short-term follow-up. PVEP was associated with shorter catheterization and postoperative hospital stay time compared with PKRP.

Standardization of 532 nm Laser Terminology for Surgery in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review

Introduction: The use of GreenLight™ laser technology to remove the prostatic transitional zone transurethrally has grown considerably in recent years. This increased utilization has resulted in an increase in the number of terms that are used to describe various laser techniques. Variable terminology complicates literature analysis and publication, which can cause confusion when performing reviews and comparisons of the techniques in the available literature. It has therefore become necessary to simplify and standardize terminology used to describe transurethral prostate debulking procedures using the 532 nm laser to simplify communication on these techniques. Materials and Methods: We conducted a search on September 17, 2019, in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE^®, Ovid EMBASE, and PubMed. Results: Of the 1115 unique records found in our database search, a total of 27 articles were selected for inclusion. Of the 16 search terms used, we found that 4 terms could be used to describe the fundamental technique associated with each search term. These terms include "vaporization," "vaporesection," "vapoenucleation," and "enucleation." Conclusions: Standardizing terminology leads to an efficient consolidation of terms based on the above outcomes. This will streamline the literature search process for future publications and facilitate comparison of varying techniques.

Photovaporization of the prostate with GreenLight™ laser 180 W XPS versus transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar energy for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement: a cost-utility analysis from a healthcare perspective

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-utility of the photovaporization of the prostate (PVP) with GreenLight™ laser 180 W XPS compared to transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar energy (M-TURP) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) from a healthcare perspective in Colombia.

METHODS

We designed a Markov model to compare four health states following treatment with either PVP or M-TURP to estimate expected costs and outcomes. We used the results of the only randomized clinical trial published to date comparing PVP versus M-TURP to estimate surgical outcomes, complications, re-operation and re-intervention rates. Time horizon was defined at 2 years with four cycles of 6 months each. Resource-use estimation involved a random selection of clinical records from a local institution and cost list from public healthcare system. Costs were obtained in Colombian pesos and converted to US dollars. Threshold was defined at three-times the Colombian gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were used based on the utilities of the available literature. Uncertainty was analyzed with deterministic and probabilistic models using a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent PVP gained 1.81 QALYs compared to 1.59 with M-TURP. Costs were US$6797.98 and US$7777.59 for M-TURP and PVP, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$4452.81 per QALY, favoring PVP as a cost-effective alternative in our context.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, with current prices, PVP is cost-effective when compared to M-TURP for LUTS due to BPE for a 2-year time horizon.

A prospective, randomized trial comparing the use of KTP (GreenLight) laser versus electroresection-supplemented laser in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Introduction

Photoselective laser vaporization of the prostate (PVP) is one of the most popular techniques of treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The aim of this study was to assess the risk of thermal damage to the external urethral sphincter during PVP at distal part of prostatic urethra.

Material and methods

66 men submitted to PVP with 80-W Green Light Laser were randomly assigned to receive standard PVP only (group A) or PVP in proximal part followed by transurethral resection in distal part of prostatic urethra (group B). Primary end-points of the study assessed at baseline, 24 hours and 8 weeks after the surgery were: urinary continence, urinary flow (Qmax), post void urine retention (PVR), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL).

Results

Per protocol analysis was eventually performed in 60 patients. Study groups did not differ in age, preoperative continence, values of Qmax, PVR, IPSS, QoL, or the rate of complete urinary retention (p >0.05). During the 8-week follow-up no patient reported urinary incontinence, while decrease in IPSS (16.3 vs. 14.9, p >0.05), QoL improvement (4.7 vs. 4.7, p >0.05), increase in Qmax (18.2 vs. 17.4, p >0.05) were similar in both study groups. Patients assigned to group B were more likely to have bleeding complications (85.2% vs. 18.2%), including patients requiring transfusion (14.8% vs. 0%). Moreover, postoperative catheterization time was shorter in group A (29.1 hrs vs. 37.2 hrs, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Laser vaporization for treatment of BPH is safe and effective, with no significant effect on the risk of urinary incontinence in comparison to traditional methods.