Photoselective vaporization has comparative efficacy and safety among high-risk benign prostate hyperplasia patients on or off systematic anticoagulation: a meta-analysis

Comparison of PKRP and TUVP in the treatment of high-risk BPH and analysis of postoperative influencing factors

Objective

This study aims to compare the efficacy of plasma kinetic loop resection of the prostate (PKRP) and transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) for the treatment of high-risk benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and analyze the influence of the related factors on the operation of BPH.

Methods

A total of 108 high-risk BPH patients diagnosed in our hospital from March 2018 to September 2021 were selected and randomly divided into an observation group and a control group, with 54 cases in each group. The control group was treated with TUVP, and the observation group was treated with PKRP. The international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL) index, maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), and residual urine volume (RU) were observed before and after treatment. The general information such as age, educational level, residence, and residence status of the patient, as well as clinical information such as surgical method, nocturia frequency, preoperative IPSS score, RU, medical history, and prostate texture, were also recorded. All patients were followed up for 1 month, and complications were recorded.

Results

The IPSS score, QOL score, and RU of patients in the two groups were lower after treatment than those before treatment, and the Qmax was higher than that before treatment (P < 0.05). The IPSS score, QOL score, and RU of the observation group were lower than those of the control group, and the Qmax was higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the observation group was lower than in the control group (P < 0.05). Univariate analysis showed that the patient's age, surgical method, nocturia frequency, preoperative IPSS score, RU, medical history, and prostatic texture all could affect the postoperative condition of patients with BPH (P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic analysis showed that the patient's age, surgical method, nocturia frequency, preoperative IPSS score, RU, and medical history were the independent influencing factors of the postoperative condition of patients with BPH (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

PKRP in the treatment of high-risk BPH patients can effectively reduce the IPSS score, QOL score, and RU and significantly increase Qmax, with fewer complications and a good prognosis. Patients’ postoperative recovery was related to their age, surgical method, nocturia frequency, preoperative IPSS score, RU, and medical history. Therefore, choosing PKRP to treat high-risk BPH patients can effectively improve the postoperative urethral functional recovery of patients and reduce the occurrence of complications.

Efficacy and Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization in the Treatment of High Risk Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and its Influence on Postoperative Life Quality of Patients

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and postoperative quality of life of high risk benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients treated with prostatic artery embolization.

Methods

34 patients with high-risk BPH were selectedfrom January 2020 to June 2021 in our hospital. All patients were treated with prostatic artery embolization. The changes of international prostate symptom score (IPSS), prostate volume (PV), remaining urine (RU), maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), quality of life scale -74(GQOLI-74), time to sleep without disturbance (HUS) judgment, self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) score and self-rating depression scale (SDS) were compared before operation, 1 month and 6 months after operation.

Results

Prostatic artery embolization was successful in all 34 patients, including unilateral embolization in 15 patients and bilateral embolization in 19 patients. No severe complications occurred in the postoperative patients. The IPSS, PV and RU levels of the patient one month and six months after surgery were lower than those before surgery, while the Qmax level was higher than that before surgery. Besides, the IPSS, PV and RU levels six months after surgery were significantly lower than those one month after surgery, and the Qmax level was significantly higher than that one month after surgery (p < 0.05). The GQOLI-74 score six months after surgery was significantly higher than that before surgery (p < 0.05). The HUS of the patient six months after surgery was significantly increased, and the SAS and SDS scores were significantly decreased as compared with those before surgery (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

For high-risk patients with BPH, prostate embolization is an effective and safe method, which can significantly improve the quality of life of patients after surgery and has good application prospects.

Surgical treatment options for benign prostatic obstruction: beyond prostate volume

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Many surgical treatment options are available for patients who present with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This article reviews the current treatment options available and distinguishes them based on five clinical considerations: antithrombotic therapy, sexual function preservation, ambulatory procedures, anesthesia-related risks and duration of catheterization.

RECENT FINDINGS

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed on 10 BPO procedures. Laser enucleation of the prostate (LEP), bipolar plasma transurethral vaporization of the prostate and photoselective vaporization (PVP) of the prostate reduces the risk of bleeding, which is recommended for anticoagulated men. Ejaculatory function is more likely to be preserved following transurethral incision of the prostate, Rezūm, Aquablation, UroLift and iTind. Same-day discharge is possible for LEP, PVP and prostatic arterial embolization (PAE). For patients with high anesthesia-related risks, procedures compatible with local anesthesia (UroLift, Rezūm, iTind and PAE) should be favored. Catheterization duration is shorter with UroLift, PVP and LEP.

SUMMARY

BPO treatment options are growing rapidly. The optimal procedure for a given patient is based on factors such as associated risks, recovery and expected outcomes. Besides prostate volume, the clinical considerations in the present article can help elucidate the best surgical BPO treatment option for each patient based on their values, preferences, and risk tolerance.

Electrosurgery or laser for benign prostatic enlargement: trumpcard or pitfalls

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize and comment on publications of the last 2 years in the field of endoscopic surgery for benign prostatic enlargement, focusing on similarities and differences of laser and electrosurgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Because of good hemostasis and safety, invasive endoscopic surgery has evolved to a choice of treatment for vulnerable patients with ongoing antithrombotic medication and in same-day surgery. Recent publications show a good perioperative course and no deterioration in the postoperative outcome. Furthermore, alterations to the original surgical techniques of resection, enucleation, and vaporization have increased the preservation rate for antegrade ejaculation, advancing them to an appealing choice of treatment for sexually active men. Favorable outcomes can be achieved in both laser and electrosurgery. Only the choice of the surgical technique determines the outcome.

SUMMARY

Various invasive endoscopic surgical techniques are available, offering different advantages and disadvantages for the patient. All of them can be performed with laser and electrosurgery. Therefore, focusing on the proper choice of surgical technique instead of the energy source will guarantee the patient to benefit most.

Position Paper of the German Society for Interventional Radiology (DeGIR) on Prostatic Artery Embolization

BACKGROUND

 In recent years prostate artery embolization (PAE) evolved into a clinically established minimally invasive endovascular treatment option for lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostate syndrome (BPS).

METHODS

 In this interdisciplinary position paper, initiated by the steering group for research of the German Society for Interventional Radiology (IR), the method of PAE is presented and discussed in the context of current evidence.

RESULTS

 PAE is a safe IR procedure for the treatment of BPS. In terms of symptom relief, measured with the IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the PAE has comparable effect, similar to the historic gold standard, transurethral resection (TUR) of the prostate. With regard to reducing subvesical obstruction PAE is inferior to TUR, but does not limit subsequent surgery. Based on current evidence, PAE is recommended by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as an alternative therapy. The feasibility under local anaesthesia and the preservation of sexual function are important arguments for patients in favour of interventional therapy. Patient selection and therapy concepts require close interdisciplinary collaboration between urologists and radiologists.

CONCLUSION

 Effectiveness and safety of PAE for the treatment of BPS are proven. Further randomized trials should focus on long term outcome and help to identify most suitable indications for PAE.

KEY POINTS

  · PAE, an endovascular procedure, is a patient-friendly, minimally invasive, alternative therapy option of the BPS. · PAE can reduce the symptoms of the lower urinary tract (LUTS), comparable to transurethral resection (TUR). The deobstructive and volume-reducing potential of the PAE is inferior to that of the TUR. · The main advantages of PAE are use of local anesthesia (no general anesthesia required), short patient recovery and maintenance of sexual function, including antegrade ejaculation.. · Based on current evidence PAE should be considered after conservative drug therapy and before TUR.. · The role of PAE in the context of other minimally invasive procedures (MIST) requires further evaluation with an open minded approach towards PAE.. · PAE is carried out by interventional radiologists, usually on a referral basis from urologists, and requires close interdisciplinary cooperation..

CITATION FORMAT

· Kovacs A, Bücker A, Grimm M et al. Position Paper of the German Society for Interventional Radiology (DeGIR) on Prostatic Artery Embolization. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; 192: 835 - 846.

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.

Holmium laser technologies versus photoselective greenlight vaporization for patients with benign prostatichyperplasia: a meta-analysis

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of holmium laser technologies (HoL-Ts) and photoselective greenlight vaporization (PVP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and to perform a meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines on PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to August 2019. Functional outcomes, perioperative parameters, and complications were included and analyzed. Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used to perform all analyses. A total of six articles composed of 2014 patients were included in this review. In comparison with PVP, HoL-Ts had a better performance in 1-, 3-, and 6-month Qmax (P = 0.02, but I² = 81%), with less postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) (MD = -33.85, 95% CI -52.13 to -15.57, P = 0.0003) and less total energy used (MD = -31.66, 95% CI -58.99 to -4.33, P = 0.02). Moreover, HoL-Ts had a relatively lower risk of conversion rate (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.60, P = 0.01) associated with enough enucleation and less intraoperative bleeding. Subgroup analysis of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) versus PVP suggested that HoLEP presented better results in 1-, 3-, 6-month and 1-year Qmax with less PVR, less energy consumption, and lower conversion rate. Compared with PVP, HoL-Ts had higher 1-, 3-, and 6-month Qmax, less PVR, and less total energy consumption with a relatively lower risk of conversion rate. In subgroup analyses, HoLEP had shown better results in accordance with all HoL-Ts. Nevertheless, well-designed RCTs including overall functional indicators are required to confirm our findings.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in benign prostate hyperplasia patients with or without oral antithrombotic drugs: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The continuous intake of antithrombotic drugs during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) remains nonconsensual. We aim to pool those controversial evidence and provide practical guidance of oral antithrombotics on HoLEP for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).

METHOD

PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL database were systematically searched up to June 2019 for trials on patients with and without oral antithrombotics undergoing HoLEP. Number of events and mean value with standard deviation were, respectively, extracted for dichotomous and continuous parameters. Subgroup analyses of anticoagulation and antiplatelet were also performed. All statistical analyses were conducted with Review Manager v.5.3 software. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of selected trials.

RESULT

Nine studies with 5528 patients were eventually selected, and patients included were generally older than 65 years. It revealed that the non-antithrombotic group had a lower rate of blood transfusion (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10-0.45, P < 0.0001), bladder tamponade (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13-0.69, P = 0.004) and acute urine retention (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.89, P = 0.02). Operation time was also shorter (MD - 10.31, 95% CI - 12.76 to - 7.85, P < 0.00001) in the non-antithrombotic group, but the heterogeneity was considerable (I² = 75%). Subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the primary analysis except the non-anticoagulation and anticoagulation group having similar operation time (MD 6.66, 95% CI - 7.15 to 20.48, P = 0.34).

CONCLUSION

The current study confirmed that continuous intake of antithrombotic drugs could significantly increase the risk of bleeding and blood transfusion, bladder tamponade and acute urine retention.