Salvage versus primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: trends, outcomes and safety analysis

[Minimally-Invasive Surgical Techniques (MIST): Shedding Light on the Mist]

As life expectancy increases and there is growing demand for BPH treatments, innovative technologies have been developed, allowing for swift recovery, symptom relief, low complication rates, and the possibility of performing procedures on an outpatient basis, often under local anaesthesia. This review aims to describe the outcomes of newly developed minimally-invasive surgical therapies (MIST) for BPH treatment in terms of functional voiding parameters and sexual function. These therapies are categorized into primarily ablative (Aquablation [Aquabeam]), non-ablative (Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL, Urolift), temporary implantable devices [iTind]), and secondarily ablative procedures (convective water vapor ablation, Rezum, Prostate Artery Embolization [PAE]). All MIST technologies have advanced the medical care of patients with BPH while preserving ejaculation. However, there is a shortage of long-term data specifically addressing re-intervention rates and the preservation of functional voiding parameters. Although there is promising data from regulatory trials and randomized studies, all MIST therapies are potentially associated with severe complications. Patients considering such methods must be thoroughly informed about their inferiority compared with established transurethral procedures like TUR-P and enucleation.

Salvage holmium laser enucleation of the prostate after previous interventions: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the re-treatment setting (salvage HoLEP) and compare it to the primary HoLEP procedure that is commonly used for the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were systematically screened, from inception to 8 August 2022. Other potentially eligible studies were retrieved using the reference lists of the included studies. Retrospective and prospective studies, both comparative and non-comparative, were included.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final qualitative synthesis. One study was prospective comparative (non-randomised), seven studies were retrospective comparative, and four studies were retrospective non-comparative or case series. In total, 831 patients were treated with salvage HoLEP in the above studies. Previous intervention before salvage HoLEP ranged among studies. The most commonly performed was transurethral resection of the prostate. Intraoperative parameters of salvage HoLEP were comparable with those reported during primary HoLEP, while all postoperative outcomes were significantly improved after salvage HoLEP and were similar with those observed after primary HoLEP. No major complications were noted after salvage HoLEP according to Clavien-Dindo classification.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage HoLEP after previous interventions for treating recurrent or residual BPH is a feasible, safe, and efficient procedure. Data presented in selected studies, along with the holmium laser's physical properties to resect more tissue and to dissect along the true anatomical plane of BPH, render HoLEP an ideal salvage treatment modality for recurrent or residual BPH symptoms.

Perioperative and functional outcomes of salvage versus primary Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Evidence-based on controlled studies

To evaluate the perioperative and functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) among patients with and without prior transurethral prostate surgery. we performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases for articles evaluating the effectiveness of salvage HoLEP (S-HoLEP) versus primary HoLEP (P-HoLEP) until January 2023. Nine studies involving 6044 patients were included for both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Compared with P-HoLEP, S-HoLEP used more energy (weighted mean difference = 14.27 KJ; 95% CI = 4.75-23.79; P = 0.003) and had an increased incidence of postoperative clot retention (odds ratio = 2.12; 95% CI = 1.25-3.59; P = 0.005) and urethral stricture (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 1.04-3.8; P = 0.04). However, the International Prostate Symptom Score at the sixth month of follow-up was significantly lower for S-HoLEP than for P-HoLEP (WMD = -0.80; 95% CI = -1.38 to -0.22; P = 0.007). There was no significant difference between S-HoLEP and P-HoLEP in terms of operative time, enucleation time, enucleation efficiency, morcellation time, resected weight, catheterisation time, hospital stay duration, quality of life, maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual and intraoperative and postoperative overall complications. compared with P-HoLEP, S-HoLEP is still a feasible and effective method for treating residual benign prostatic hyperplasia, with only a slight increase in the probability of energy utilisation, clot retention and urethral stricture. Despite these minor discrepancies, the overall beneficial effects of the two modalities on symptom resolution is noteworthy.