Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation

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.

Transurethral anatomical enucleation of the prostate with Tm:YAG support (ThuLEP): Evolution and variations of the technique. The inventors' perspective

After its introduction, transurethral anatomical enucleation of the prostate with Tm:YAG support (ThuLEP) has evolved as one of the standard techniques of transurethral anatomical endoscopic enucleations of the prostate. Growing evidence has proven ThuLEP as an alternative for the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic enlargement and has been acknowledged by the EAU Guidelines on Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction. The uniqueness of ThuLEP as a concept made it a blueprint for other laser and nonlaser enucleating techniques based on the emphasis on two principles: widely blunt anatomical dissection and demystification of energy sources as being secondary for transurethral enucleation. The original technique has been technically refined by the inventor and other working groups in the field. The evolutionary modifications followed the academic discourse on anatomical enucleation for measures to prevent early postoperative stress urinary incontinence and preservation of antegrade ejaculation. Variations of the original three-lobe dissection technique were introduced with two-lobe approach or en bloc dissection. The manuscript is accompanied by an instructional video and surgical atlas on the currently most commonly applied two-lobe technique.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of size-independent BPH: A single-center experience of 600 cases

OBJECTIVE

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an endourologic minimal invasive intervention of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). The interest on HoLEP is increasing in the literature. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the learning curve and our preliminary results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis on 600 patients with BPH who underwent HoLEP between July 2015 and April 2019 was performed. Perioperative measures including enucleation efficiency (EE), morcellation efficiency (ME), and percentage of resected tissue weight (PRW) were recorded. Hospitalization time (HT) and catheterization time (CT) were measured. Functional outcomes, Clavien-Dindo classification complications, and continence status were assessed at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean age, prostate size, and prostate-specific antigen levels of the patients were 64.54 years, 91 g, and 4.54 ng/mL, respectively. There were 38.3% of patients with ≥100 g prostate size. The measured EE, ME, and PRW were 1.12 g/min, 4 g/min, and 72%, respectively. The mean HT and CT were 24.53 h and 21.50 h, respectively. Functional outcomes showed significant improvement at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were comparable with the literature. The most common perioperative complication was superficial bladder mucosal injury (n=8, 1.33%). Only one patient had persistent stress urinary incontinence at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

As mentioned in the literature, HoLEP indications are independent from prostate size. Our results showed similarity with the literature on functional outcomes, complication rates, and continence status. With its superior results, our HoLEP series from Turkey supports that HoLEP will replace transurethral resection of the prostate as the known current gold standard.

[Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate]

The spectrum of surgical procedures for the minimally invasive treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has significantly increased over the last two decades. The simple suprapubic prostatectomy (subtotal prostatectomy, SP) has largely lost relevance in current practice. On the other hand, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been further standardized and potentially made safer by the introduction of the bipolar technique and low-pressure systems.Transurethral (endoscopic) enucleation techniques (endoscopic enucleation of the prostate, EEP) are increasingly competing with the current gold standard TURP and are replacing SP for treatment of larger adenomas. This approach is especially related to the rapid development of laser technology, which has sustainably changed the face of modern BPH treatment in a similar way to stone therapy. This has been incorporated in the clinical patient management, clinical studies and standardization of numerous surgical techniques that are systematically described in this article. Additionally, efforts have also been made to use other energy sources, such as bipolar current in EEP. With respect to scientific objectivity, high-quality clinical trials are regularly published which further strengthen the position of EEP.

En bloc and two-lobe techniques for laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: retrospective comparative analysis of peri- and postoperative outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Various techniques can be used for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP): removal of all nodes as a single unit (en bloc) or a step-by-step removal of adenomatous nodes (two- and three-lobe techniques). The objective of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of en bloc and two-lobe techniques for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP).

METHODS

Retrospective assessment included patients with bladder outlet obstruction (IPSS > 20, Qmax < 10) secondary to BPH treated from January 2013 to December 2018. All the patients were assessed prior to surgery, as well as at 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The data of 1115 patients who underwent HoLEP or ThuFLEP were analyzed. Two techniques were used: en bloc (406 patients) and two-lobe (709 patients). Mean prostate volumes were comparable between groups. Mean surgery times (68.8 ± 30.6 min vs 67.4 ± 30.1 min; p = 0.604) and enucleation rates (1.9 ± 0.74 g/min vs 1.9 ± 0.69 g/min; p = 0.217) were also comparable. Morcellation rate was lower in en bloc patients with prostate > 150 cc (2.8 ± 1.1 g/min vs 3.7 ± 2.3 g/min; p < 0.001). At 6 months, no differences in functional outcomes (IPSS, PVR, Qmax and QoL) were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes and complication rates of en bloc and two-lobe EEP techniques were comparable. En bloc technique was found to have less favorable outcomes in morcellation rate for prostates > 150 cc. The choice of the technique should depend on surgeon's preferences.

Bipolar endoscopic enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: an ESUT systematic review and cumulative analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a cumulative analysis of the current evidence on the surgical and functional outcomes of bipolar endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (b-EEP) versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (b-TURP).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed, Ovid^®, and Scopus^® according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement (PRISMA Statement). The meta-analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Parameters of interest were surgical and functional outcomes. Weighted mean difference, and odds ratio with 95% confidence interval were calculated for continuous and binary variables, respectively. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Fourteen comparative studies were included. No statistically significant difference in terms of overall baseline characteristics was found. b-EEP had higher amount of resected tissue (p < 0.0001), shorter catheter time (p = 0.006), lower Hb drop (p = 0.03), and shorter length of stay (p < 0.0001). Equally, overall post-operative complications were lower (p = 0.01) as well as short (p = 0.04), and long-term complication rate (p = 0.04). There was higher re-intervention rate in the b-TURP group (p = 0.02) whereas b-EEP group had smaller residual prostate volume (p = 0.03), and lower post-operative PSA values (p < 0.00001). At long term, b-EEP presented lower IPSS (p = 0.04), higher Q_max (p = 0.002), and lower PVR (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

b-EEP is an effective and safe surgical treatment for BPO. This procedure might offer several advantages over standard b-TURP, including the resection of a larger amount of tissue within the same operative time, shorter hospitalization, lower risk of complications, and lower re-intervention rate. This was submitted to PROSPERO registry: CRD42019126748.

Quality of life after photo-selective vaporization and holmium-laser enucleation of the prostate: 5-year outcomes

This study was aimed to compare serial long-term postoperative changes in quality-of-life (QoL) between photoselective-vaporization (PVP) using 120W-High-Performance-System and holmium-laser-enucleation (HoLEP) in benign-prostatic-hyperplasia (BPH) patients and to identify factors influencing the QoL improvement at the short-term, mid-term and long-term follow-up visits after surgery. We analyzed 1,193 patients with a baseline QoL-index ≥2 who underwent PVP (n = 439) or HoLEP (n = 754). Surgical outcomes were serially compared between the two groups at up to 60-months using the International-Prostatic-Symptom-Score (I-PSS), uroflowmetry, and serum PSA. We used logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of QoL improvement (a reduction in the QoL-index ≥50% compared with baseline) at the short-term (12-months), mid-term (36-months), and long term (60-months) follow-up after surgery. In both groups, the QoL-index was decreased throughout the entire follow-up period compared with that at baseline. There were no significant differences in postoperative changes from the baseline QoL-index between the two groups during the 48-month follow-up, except at 60-months. The degree of improvement in QoL at 60-months after HoLEP was greater than that after PVP. A lower baseline storage-symptom-subscore and a higher bladder-outlet-obstruction-index (BOOI) were independent factors influencing QoL improvement at the short-term. No independent factor influences QoL improvement at the mid- or long-term.

The effect of prostatic tissue density on the perioperative outcomes of Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP): a pilot study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of prostate tissue density (PTD) on perioperative Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) outcomes.

METHODS

Two hundred fourteen patients underwent HoLEP between December 2016 and August 2018 (group 1: PTD < 1 g/mL and group 2: PTD ≥ 1 g/mL). Enucleation time (ET), morcellation time (MT), total operation time (TOT), total laser energy (TLE), efficiency of laser (EL), efficiency of enucleation (EE), efficiency of morcellation (EM), enucleation rate (ER), and enucleated tissue weight (ETW) were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean ages of the groups 1, 2 were 61.36±5.92 and 63.1±7.52 years, respectively. TOT (76.4 vs 86.21 min), ET (69.18 vs 79.94 min), EE (0.80 vs 0.91 g/min), and ETW (55.8 vs 70.23 g) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the MT was longer in group 2 (11.27 ± 8.57 min and 7.22 ± 5.46 min, p = 0.0001). Furthermore, EM was higher in group 1 (9.81 ± 5.61 g/min and 7.45 ± 4.14 g/min, p = 0.0003). The EL and TLE were similar in both groups. PTD positively correlated with MT (ρ = 0.272, p = 0.0005) and negatively correlated with EM (ρ = - 0.315, p = 0.0001). No correlations were identified between the PTD and EL or EE.

CONCLUSIONS

PTD is a factor that influences the HoLEP on perioperative outcomes. The PTD particularly affects the morcellation phase of the surgery. Patients with higher PTD will have a longer duration of MT and lesser EM. Future studies with the use of different imaging methods will give insight into the duration and difficulty of the HoLEP.

Monopolar enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for small- and medium-sized (< 80 cc) benign prostate hyperplasia: a prospective analysis

AIM

To assess efficacy and safety of monopolar enucleation of the prostate (MEP) and to compare it with the current treatment standard for medium-sized prostates, < 80 cc, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

METHODS

A prospective analysis patients undergoing a surgical procedure for their diagnosis of BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) (IPSS > 20, Q_max < 10; prostate volume < 80 cc) was performed. IPSS, Q_max were assessed preoperatively, at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The complications were classified according to the modified Clavien-Dindo grading system.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were included in the study: 70 underwent MEP and 64 - TURP for BPH (mean prostate volumes were comparable with p = 0.163). The mean surgery time was 44 min in the TURP group and 48.2 min in the MEP group, (p = 0.026). Catheterization time for MEP was 1.7 and 3.2 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Hospital stay for MEP was 3.2 days vs. 4.8 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Both techniques shown comparable efficiency in benign prostatic obstruction relief with IPSS drop in MEP from 23.1 to 5.9 and in TURP group from 22.8 to 7.3, whereas Q_max increased from 8.2 to 20.5 after MEP and from 8.3 and 19.9 after TURP. Urinary incontinence rate after catheter removal in TURP group was 9.0% and 7.8% in MEP group, at 1 year follow-up, it was 1.4% and 3.1% in MEP and TURP, respectively (p = 0.466).

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrated that MEP is an effective and safe BPH treatment option combining the efficacy of endoscopic enucleation techniques and accessibility of conventional TURP.

Feasibility of en bloc thulium laser enucleation of the prostate in a large case series. Are results enhanced by experience?

Objective

To provide the first large single-operator case series of patients who undergo “en bloc” thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and to demonstrate an improvement in enucleation efficacy with experience.

Methods

We prospectively evaluated a cohort of patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who underwent “en bloc” ThuLEP between May 2015 and November 2017. Association between dependent variables (delivered energy and operating time) and independent variables (adenoma volume and experience) were estimated with regression analysis. The experience was calculated as the time interval between the date of the first operation of the series and the date of the operation being considered.

Results

A total of 100 patients were registered for the study. Median operative time was 56.5 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 40–85 min). Median enucleation time was 17.4 min (IQR: 15–21.5 min). Median enucleation index (enucleation time per adenoma gram) was 0.3 min/g (0.2–0.3 min/g). The overall operative time is not influenced by experience, but we registered a significant trend towards a reduction in the total amount of energy delivered energy normalized per adenoma gram (p = 0.0148).

Conclusion

We believe that further attention is needed for these new “en bloc” prostatic enucleation techniques, which can facilitate some surgical steps, leading to a widespread use of laser technology for BPH surgical treatment.

Does mechanical morcellation of large glands compromise incidental prostate cancer detection on specimen analysis? A pathological comparison with open simple prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to compare the incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) detection rate between pathological specimens from green laser enucleation of the prostate (GreenLEP) and open simple prostatectomy (OSP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In two institutions, the charts of all consecutive patients who underwent OSP between January 2005 and December 2010 were retrospectively reviewed, and the data of all consecutive patients who underwent GreenLEP with tissue morcellation between July 2013 and January 2018 were also collected. Preoperative demographics and pathological findings were recorded. iPCa detection rate was retrospectively compared between the GreenLEP and OSP groups in a propensity score model, including all predetermined variables: Age, preoperative PSA level and prostate volume.

RESULTS

Of 738 patients, 402 were included in the propensity-score matching analysis, and they were equally distributed among groups. The overall iPCa detection rates were similar in both groups (9.9% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.73), and there were no statistically significant differences in terms of tumour stage, Gleason score or the rate of clinically significant iPCa, although the number of cassettes analysed was significantly higher in the morcellation group than in the OSP group. No predictive factors for iPCa were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that the mechanical morcellation of large glands had no influence on iPCa detection. Compared with a specimen from standard OSP, a large morcellated tissue sample allows adequate pathological evaluation and does not alter a pathologist's ability to detect iPCa.

A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach-Initial Results

OBJECTIVE

To assess the differences in the learning curve associated with different techniques of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups (30 patients in each): HoLEP, ThuFLEP or MEP. Inclusion criteria for the study included prostate volume <80 cc, IPSS > 20, or Qmax < 10. The EEPs were performed by 3 surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate. Assignment of surgeons to surgical technique was also randomized. None of the surgeons had prior experience in EEP.

RESULTS

ThuFLEP was slightly superior (with no significant difference [P > .05]) to HoLEP and MEP in terms of overall enucleation rate-1.0 g/min vs 0.8 g/min and 0.7 g/min, respectively. We observed similar enucleation rates at the initial stages of training (first 20 surgeries) with insignificant increase in ThuFLEP efficiency. At next 10 surgeries ThuFLEP and HoLEP efficiency were higher than of MEP (P < .001) without significant difference between techniques of laser EEP (P = .07).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate can be adopted safely and effectively within 30 surgeries if the technique is learned with a mentoring approach. EEP is shown to be safe and effective even in the initial stages of learning. Laser EEP (HoLEP, ThuFLEP) appears to lend itself to quicker adaptation compared MEP.

Dual-centre randomized-controlled trial comparing transurethral endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using diode laser vs. bipolar plasmakinetic for the treatment of LUTS secondary of benign prostate obstruction: 1-year follow-up results

PURPOSE

Bipolar endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (BEEP) was recommended by the 2016 EAU guidelines as the first choice of surgical treatment in men with a substantially enlarged prostate and moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms. The main aim of this study was to compare a modified diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) to BEEP.

METHODS

A total of 114 patients with prostate (20-160 mL) were randomized 1:1 into either DiLEP or BEEP in a dual-centre, non-inferiority-design randomized-controlled trial. The primary outcomes included Q_max and IPSS at 12 months. Non-inferiority was evaluated by comparing the two-sided 95% CI for the mean differences of Q_max and IPSS. Secondary endpoints included other perioperative parameters, postoperative micturition variables, and complication rate.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients (97%) had completed the intent-to-treat analysis, The results showed that DiLEP was comparable to BEEP regarding Q_max (28.0 ± 7.0 vs. 28.1 ± 7.2 mL/s) and IPSS (3.0 ± 2.2 vs. 2.9 ± 2.6) at 12 months, the non-inferiority was met for both Q_max and IPSS. There were also no significant difference between two groups regarding tissue removal rate (71.8 vs. 73.8%), hemoglobin decrease (0.33 ± 0.66 vs. 0.36 ± 0.75 g/dL), sodium decrease (1.0 ± 2.7 vs. 0.3 ± 2.9 mmol/L), and Clavien III complications (5.3 vs. 1.8%) at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This DiLEP is an anatomical endoscopic enucleation technique for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, it is non-inferior to BEEP regarding Q_max and IPSS at 12 months postoperatively.

[Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various techniques of endoscopic prostate enucleation in a single center]

AIM

To compare electro- and laser enucleation (thulium, holmium) of prostate hyperplasia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

693 prostate hyperplasia patients were enrolled. 489 patients underwent holmium enucleation (HoLEP), 51 - monopolar enucleation, 153 - thulium enucleation (ThuLEP). Prostate volume was 91.7 (50-250) cm³. There were no significant differences in preoperative variables between both groups (I-PSS, QoL, Qmax, residual urine volume) (p>0.05).

RESULTS

Mean time of HoLEP was 97.0±42.2 min, monopolar enucleation - 112.9±36.3 min, ThuLEP duration was significantly less (77.4±36.3 min, p<0.01). An efficacy of all methods was confirmed in 6 months after surgery by significant (p<0.01) improvement of functional parameters (I-PSS, QoL, Qmax, residual urine volume).

CONCLUSION

High efficiency of thulium and holmium enucleation allows to consider them as 'gold standard' of prostate hyperplasia management. Despite higher incidence of complications an efficacy of monopolar enucleation is comparable to that in laser techniques.

Learning curves and perioperative outcomes after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a comparison between GreenLight 532-nm and holmium lasers

PURPOSE

To compare the learning curves, perioperative and early functional outcomes after HoLEP and GreenLEP.

METHODS

Data from the first 100 consecutive cases treated by GreenLEP and HoLEP by two surgeons were prospectively collected from dedicated databases and analysed retrospectively. En-bloc GreenLEP and two-lobar HoLEP enucleations were conducted using the GreenLight HPS™ 2090 laser and Lumenis™ holmium laser. Patients' characteristics, perioperative outcomes and functional outcomes after 1, 3 and 6 months were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Total energy delivered and operative times were significantly shorter for GreenLEP (58 vs. 110 kJ, p < 0.0001; 60 vs. 90 min, p < 0.0001). Operative time reached a plateau after 30 procedures in each group. Length of catheterization and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the HoLEP group (2 vs. 1 day, p < 0.0001; 2 vs. 1 day, p < 0.0001). Postoperative complications were comparable between GreenLEP and HoLEP (19 vs. 25 %; p = 0.13). There was a greater increase of Q _max at 3 months and a greater IPSS decrease at 1 month for GreenLEP, whereas decreases in IPSS and IPSS-Q8 at 6 months were greater for HoLEP. Transient stress urinary incontinence was comparable between both groups (6 vs. 9 % at 3 months; p = 0.42). Pentafecta was achieved in four consecutive patients after the 18th and the 40th procedure in the GreenLEP and HoLEP group, respectively. Learning curves ranged from 14 to 30 cases for GreenLEP and 22 to 40 cases for HoLEP.

CONCLUSION

Learning curves of GreenLEP and HoLEP provided roughly similar peri-operative and short-term functional outcomes.