Transurethral endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a diode laser versus bipolar plasmakinetic for benign prostatic obstruction: a meta-analysis

[Surgical treatment options of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic obstruction : The German S2e guideline 2023-part 3]

BACKGROUND

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) are one of the most common diagnoses in clinical practice. Bothersome LUTS impact considerably quality of life of men and may cause severe complications without treatment. According to the diagnostic assessment every patient should be treated with an adequate therapy. Management comprises a conservative approach, medication, novel minimally invasive options, and surgical procedures with the aim to remove the obstructing adenoma. The German guideline panel has updated the German guidelines on diagnostic evaluation and management of LUTS due to BPO.

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based recommendations of surgical treatment options of LUTS due to BPO are evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chapters 11.1.1 and 11.2 of the updated German S2e guideline on the management of LUTS due to BPO are summarized as a review article.

RESULTS

A treatment algorithm based on current evidence has been proposed. It is considered to provide guidance for the selection of the best procedure according to the needs of the patient. Anatomic features of the prostate, the patients' morbidity, and the preservation of ejaculatory function are taken into account for the choice of the best procedures. These surgical options can be divided into techniques with direct, delayed or no removal of the adenoma, procedures with suprapubic access, and embolizing approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated German S2e guideline on the management of LUTS due to BPO provides evidence-based recommendations for the selection of the best procedure according to the needs of the individual patient.

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.

Economic Evaluation of 1470 nm Diode Laser Enucleation vs Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate

Purpose: Large meta-analyses demonstrate the noninferiority of laser enucleation to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with regard to long-term efficacy and reoperation rate. Although the 1470 nm diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) is superior in hemostasis and surgical visibility, its complexity and associated longer operative time limit its widespread usage. The objective of this study was to generate long-term cost estimates for bipolar TURP and DiLEP, taking into account perioperative and adverse event costs. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent DiLEP (n = 114; November 2016 to February 2020) or TURP (n = 194; January 2016 to December 2018). A decision analysis model was constructed to compare costs of the primary procedure and subsequent complications taking into account disposable costs, operating room time, length of stay, reoperation rates, and readmissions. Costs were estimated from internal data, published literature and Medicare procedure costs. Markov modeling was used to create cost projections up to 10 years. Results: DiLEP was associated with shorter length of stay and fewer total complications, but longer operative times and greater initial costs. Cost were recuperated at 8 years postoperatively. At 10 years postoperatively, DiLEP represented approximately $664 cost savings per patient over TURP. Conclusions: DiLEP is a cost-effective alternative to TURP for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the properly selected patient. DiLEP has greater initial costs due to longer operative times. Costs are recuperated by 10 years postoperatively due to higher rate of same-day discharges, and lower complication and reoperation rates, incurring a $664 cost savings per patient treated by DiLEP relative to TURP.

Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting early stress urinary incontinence following endoscopic enucleation of the prostate

PURPOSE

To develop and validate a predictive nomogram for early stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

The records of 458 patients who underwent plasmakinetic- or diode-based EEP at our center from March 2016 to December 2019 were reviewed. Among these, 326 and 132 cases were randomly assigned to the training and validation set, respectively. A predictive nomogram was constructed based on multivariate logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and calibration curves were employed to evaluate its performance.

RESULTS

65 years ≤ age < 70 years, 75 years ≤ age, 25 kg/m² ≤ BMI < 30 kg/m², 30 kg/m² ≤ BMI, 5 years ≤ LUTS duration, and 75 ml ≤ prostate volume were finally selected as independent predictors of early SUI into the multivariate logistics regression model. It was visualized as a concise nomogram with satisfactory discrimination and accuracy in both training and validation sets.

CONCLUSIONS

A concise nomogram was developed and validated as a useful clinical tool for predicting early SUI post-EEP.

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.