The constant search for the greater good: evolving from TURP to anatomic enucleation of the prostate is a safe bet

Monopolar Transurethral Enucleoresection of Prostate: Feasibility of Modified Nesbit's Enucleoresection with Apical Release

Background: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the standard surgical treatment for Benign Hyperplasia of the Prostate (BPH) for decades. Our objective was to evaluate the outcome of our new technique: Monopolar Transurethral Enucleoresection of the Prostate (TUERP) with apical release (bring it all to centre). Methods: A prospective study of all cases undergoing TUERP at a tertiary centre from January 2020 to October 2022 was performed. Patient demographics, intraoperative variables and postoperative results along with follow-up data were collected. Data of all the cases who had completed a one-year follow-up post-surgery were included and analysed. Results: A total of 240 patients with complete data including a one-year follow-up were included. Mean prostatic volume was 55.3 ± 11.6 gm, and 28 (11.67%) cases were >100 gm. The mean operative time was 31.7 ± 7.6, and mean haemoglobin drop at 24 h was 0.73 ± 1.21 gm/dL. The overall complication rate was 16.67%, with only two (0.83%) Clavien-Dindo III complications (haematuria and clots needing evacuation) and the other complications being Clavien-Dindo I/II complications. Sustained improvement at 1 year of follow-up was noted: Qmax: 25.2 ± 5.6 mL/s, IPSS: 4.7 ± 2.5 and PVR: 22.5 ± 9.6 mL. Conclusions: Monopolar TUERP with a modified Nesbit's enucleoresection with apical release can be considered a promising technique, which needs further studies to be validated with appropriate comparisons.

Minimally invasive surgical therapies (MISTs) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS): promise or panacea?

ABSTRACT

The increasing importance of treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), while avoiding side effects and maintaining sexual function, has allowed for the development of minimally invasive surgical therapies (MISTs). Recently, the European Association of Urology guidelines reported a paradigm shift from the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) to the management of nonneurogenic male LUTS. The aim of the present review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the most commonly used MISTs: ablative techniques such as aquablation, prostatic artery embolization, water vapor energy, and transperineal prostate laser ablation, and nonablative techniques such as prostatic urethral lift and temporarily implanted nitinol device (iTIND). MISTs are becoming a new promise, even if clinical trials with longer follow-up are still lacking. Most of them are still under investigation and, to date, only a few options have been given as a recommendation for use. They cannot be considered as standard of care and are not suitable for all patients. Advantages and disadvantages should be underlined, without forgetting our objective: treatment of LUTS and re-treatment avoidance.

Efficacy and Safety of 1470 nm Diode Laser Enucleation of the Prostate in Elderly Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Patients

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of 1470 nm diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) and plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in elderly benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Methods: A total of 123 elderly patients with BPH were randomized to undergo either 1470 nm DiLEP or PKRP by means of a random number table from September 2020 to April 2022. The perioperative and postoperative data were studied during a 3- and 6-month follow-up. Results: The patients treated with 1470 nm DiLEP had significantly decreased operation time (74.6 ± 17.0 vs 98.8 ± 18.9 minutes, p < 0.001), hemoglobin loss (1.06 ± 0.49 vs 1.59 ± 0.60 g/dL, p < 0.001), bladder irrigation time (22.1 ± 8.1 vs 33.9 ± 10.0 hours, p < 0.001), catheter duration (3.2 ± 1.3 vs 5.8 ± 1.0 days, p < 0.001), and hospital stay (7.6 ± 1.4 vs 9.6 ± 1.3 days, p < 0.001) compared with the PKRP group. Besides, International Index of Erectile Function-5 score of 1470 nm DiLEP group at postoperative 3- and 6-month follow-up was significantly higher than PKRP group. No differences achieving statistical significance were identified in total prostate-specific antigen, maximum urinary flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score, quality-of-life score, and the postvoid residual urine volume, transient incontinence, urethral stricture, bladder neck contracture, and retrograde ejaculation at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Conclusions: 1470 nm DiLEP is safer than PKRP, with a smaller effect on sexual function, and it is comparable with the efficacy of PKRP, thus making it more suitable for elderly BPH patients. Clinical Trial Registration number: S2021-463-01.

En Bloc enucleation with early apical release technique using MOSES (En Bloc MoLEP) vs. classic En Bloc HoLEP: a single arm study comparing intra- and postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to describe the technique and outcomes of En-Bloc MOSES laser enucleation of the prostate (En-Bloc MoLEP) with early apical release comparing it to En-Bloc HoLEP (non-MOSES).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a single-arm prospective study, using a historical control. n = 80 patients were enrolled to the En Bloc MoLEP group and compared to a retrospective group of n = 137 patients treated by En Bloc HoLEP (non-MOSES), in total n = 217 patients.

RESULTS

En-Bloc MoLEP, showed to significantly improve the surgical time by 32% compared to non-MOSES HoLEP (32.16 ± 14.46 min, 47.58 ± 21.32, respectively; P = 0.003). Enucleation time, ablation rate and hemostasis time were also significantly improved (P < 0.001, for all three parameters). Enucleation time was 22.10 ± 9.27 min and 31.46 ± 14.85 min (P < 0.001), ablation rate 4.11 ± 2.41 and 2.54 ± 1.31 gr/min (P < 0.001), Hemostasis time 3.01 ± 2.50 and 8.35 ± 5.38 min (P < 0.001), for En Bloc MoLEP and En Bloc HoLEP, respectively. Q-max, PVR, PSA and IPSS showed significant improvement, however, at 12 months no significant differences were observed comparing both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

En-Bloc MoLEP was significantly better than En-Bloc HoLEP in terms of surgical time, enucleation time, ablation rate and hemostasis time. However, large comparative RCT with long-term follow-up are needed.

Contemporary surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction: does there remain a place in the toolbox for TURP?

Level of evidence: 5