Trends in Simple Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Comparing prostatic artery embolization to surgical and minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To summarize current evidence to report a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open simple prostatectomy (OSP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies published from inception until August 2021. The search terms used were (prostate embolization OR prostatic embolization) AND (prostatic hyperplasia OR prostatic obstruction) as well as the abbreviations of PAE and BPH. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included with 810 patients: five RCTs and one observational study compared PAE with TURP, and one observational study compared PAE with OSP. The included studies had considerable risk of bias concerns. TURP and OSP were associated with more statistically significant improvements in urodynamic measures and BPH symptoms compared to PAE. However, PAE seems to significantly improve erectile dysfunction compared to OSP and improve other outcome measures compared to TURP, although not significantly. PAE appeared to reduce adverse events and report more minor complications compared with TURP and OSP, but it is unclear whether PAE is more effective in the long-term.

CONCLUSION

PAE is an emerging treatment option for patients with symptomatic BPH who cannot undergo surgery or have undergone failed medical therapy. Overall, PAE groups reported fewer adverse events. Future ongoing and longer-term studies are needed to provide better insight into the benefit of PAE compared to other treatment options.

Treatment Algorithm for Management of Benign Prostatic Obstruction: An Overview of Current Techniques

The management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) should involve a treatment algorithm that takes into account prostate size, and patient's symptoms and preference with the aim of helping with urinary symptoms and enhance quality of life. The diagnostic assessment for men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) should be comprehensive to help choose the best management strategy. Strategies from lifestyle modifications to medical treatment with alpha blockers and/or 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors to surgical procedures can all be used in the management algorithm. Surgical management ranges from transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) to minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) including laser therapies such as Holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) and photoselective vaporisation (PVP), aquablation, Rezūm system, prostate artery embolisation (PAE), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) and Optilume BPH catheter system. BPO is a common urological condition that has a significant impact on quality of life and economic burden globally and is likely to become increasingly prevalent with an ageing population. Selecting the most appropriate treatment modality will depend on the individual patient preferences, availability of resources, cost, anatomical factors and the goals of treatment.

Rezūm for retention-retrospective review of water vaporization therapy in the management of urinary retention in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

Rezūm vapor ablation is a minimally invasive treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) that uses injections of sterile water vapor directly into the prostate for tissue ablation. Although Rezūm is currently indicated for use in men with prostate sizes ≥30 and ≤80 ml, it is unclear how effective Rezūm is for men in urinary retention. We sought to determine whether Rezūm is effective in the treatment of catheter-dependent urinary retention secondary to BPH.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on consecutive patients who presented for urinary retention and subsequently treated with Rezūm. We evaluated procedural details and examined variables pre- and post-Rezūm (at 6 months) including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life (IPSS-QOL), maximum flow (Q_max ), post void residual volume (PVR), prostate specific antigen, rate of retention, and use of alpha blockers and 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI).

RESULTS

Of the 49 patients included in this study, median age of was 73 years, median prostate volume was 73cc (Interquartile range [IQR]: 50, 103) and a median lobe was present in 80% of patients. All patients were in urinary retention before treatment with a median PVR of 900 ml (IQR: 566, 1146). Following Rezum, IPSS (17 pre-Rezūm, 4 post-Rezūm) and IPSS-QOL (4 pre-Rezūm, 1 post-Rezūm) both improved at 6 months (p < 0.01). Q_max increased from 3 to 6 ml/s (p = 0.03) and PVR decreased from 900 to 78 ml (p < 0.01). Only 17/38 patients taking alpha-blockers and 7/15 patients on 5ARIs continued therapy at 6 months following Rezūm (p < 0.01). Of the 49 patients treated, 10 (20.4%) remained in catheter dependent urinary retention following the procedure, and 6 remained in retention at 6 months (12.2%) even after further surgical therapies for BPH (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Rezūm is a safe and effective therapy for treating catheter dependent urinary retention in patients with BPH, including those with median lobes. As a minimally invasive therapy, it is a promising option in patient, particularly those who are not suitable for prolonged anesthesia.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy and open simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Science databases for studies published through December 2020. Controlled trials on RASP and OSP for large prostates were included. The meta-analysis was conducted with the Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: A total of seven studies with 3,777 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in IPSS (WMD, 0.72; 95%CI: -0.31, 1.76; P = 0.17), QoL (WMD, 0.00; 95%CI: -0.39, 0.39; P > 0.99), Qmax (WMD, 1.88; 95% CI: -1.15, 4.91; P = 0.22), or PVR (WMD, -10.48; 95%CI: -25.13, 4.17; P = 0.16) among patients undergoing RASP and OSP. However, compared with patients who underwent OSP, patients who underwent RASP had a shorter LOS (WMD, -2.83; 95%CI: -3.68, -1.98; P < 0.001), less EBL (WMD, -304.68; 95% CI: -432.91, -176.44; P < 0.001), a shorter CT (WMD, -2.61; 95%CI: -3.94, -1.29; P < 0.001), and fewer overall complications (OR, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.57; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, RASP was associated with a longer OT (WMD, 59.69, 95% CI: 49.40, 69.98; P < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrated that RASP provided similar efficacy to those of OSP in the treatment of large prostate, while maintaining better security. Our findings indicate that RASP is a feasible and effective alternative to OSP.

Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic vs open simple prostatectomy in the modern robotic era: results from the National Inpatient Sample

OBJECTIVES

To perform a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and hospitalisation cost between open (OSP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) in the contemporary robotic era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The NIS was queried for cases of OSP and RASP for the treatment of BPH between 2013 and 2016. Perioperative complications, unadjusted hospital cost and length of stay (LOS) were compared between RASP and OSP. Smoothed linear regression curves comparing hospitalisation cost by increasing LOS was stratified by surgical approach to identify point of cost equivalency between RASP and OSP. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to construct a hospitalisation cost model to examine the contribution of the robotic approach and LOS to hospitalisation cost.

RESULTS

The total analytical cohort included 2551 OSP and 704 RASP procedures. Patients undergoing RASP were younger, at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 68 (63-73) vs 71 (65-77) years, and with less comorbidity (76.8% vs 86.5%, P < 0.01). RASP was associated with fewer total complications (11.1% vs 29.2%, P < 0.01) and a greater likelihood of routine discharge to home rather than another facility (88.9% vs 76.7%, P < 0.01). While LOS was shorter with RASP (median [IQR], 2 [1-3] vs 4 [3-6] days, P < 0.01), total unadjusted hospitalisation cost (in United States dollars) was greater (median [IQR], $10 855 [$7965-$15 675] vs $13 467 [$10 572-$17 722], P < 0.01). Presence of any complication increased both LOS and hospitalisation cost (P < 0.01). Linear regression modelling determined the point of cost equivalence between RASP staying a median of 2 days was an OSP case staying between 5 and 6 days. On multivariable regression analysis, the robotic approach contributed an additional $6175 (P < 0.01) to the cost model, whereas each additional day of hospitalisation contributed $1687 (P < 0.01), suggesting LOS would need to be 3-4 days shorter with RASP to offset surgical costs of the robot.

CONCLUSIONS

While RASP appears to have significantly better perioperative complication rates with shorter LOS and likely discharge to home, total hospitalisation cost remained greater, likely related to upfront operative costs. While this retrospective study is limited by selection bias for patients undergoing RASP, the benefits of improved convalescence, discharge to home, and lower rate of perioperative complications appear to justify performance of RASP in an experienced pelvic robotic centre despite relatively greater hospitalisation cost if referral to an experienced holmium laser enucleation of the prostate centre is not feasible.

Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy vs bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate in large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a two-center 3-year comparison

PURPOSE

To compare surgery outcomes and safety of button bipolar enucleation of the prostate vs laparoscopic simple prostatectomy in patients with large prostates (> 80 g) in a two-center cohort study.

METHODS

All patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement (Prostate volume > 80 cc) undergoing button bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BTUEP) or laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) in two centers were enrolled. Data on clinical history, physical examination, urinary symptoms, uroflowmetry and prostate volume were collected at 0, 1, 3 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Early and long-term complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 296 patients were enrolled. Out of them, 167/296 (56%) performed a LSP and 129/296 (44%) performed a BTUEP. In terms of efficacy both procedures showed durable results at three years with a reintervention rate of 8% in the LSP group and of 5% in the BTUEP group. In terms of safety, BTUEP and LSP presented similar safety profiles with a 9% of transfusion rate and no major complications.

CONCLUSION

LSP and BTUEP are safe and effective in treating large-volume adenomas with durable results at three years when performed in experienced centers.

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a New York statewide analysis of early adoption and outcomes between 2009 and 2017

The factors driving early adoption of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for large gland BPH have not yet been identified. This study aims to determine the patient, provider, and facility level differences and predictors in undergoing RASP versus OSP. This population-based cohort study used data from the all-payer New York State Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database. Patient, provider, and facility characteristics for each cohort were analyzed, and a multivariate analysis was conducted to identify predictive factors associated with undergoing RASP versus OSP. From 2009 to 2017, 1881 OSP and 216 RASP cases were identified. RASP utilization increased from 2.6% of all cases in 2009 to 16.8% in 2017. Patient demographics were similar between both cohorts. Median length of stay was shorter for RASP patients (3 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001), and OSP was associated with a long length of stay (> 7 days) (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 30- and 90-day readmission rates or 1-year mortality. More OSP patients were discharged to continued care facilities than RASP patients (p = 0.049), and more RASP patients were discharged to home compared to OSP patients (p = 0.035). Positive predictors for undergoing RASP included teaching hospital status, medium and high hospital bed volume, high hospital operative volume, high surgeon volume, and surgeons that graduated within 15 years of surgery. As RASP shows favorable perioperative outcomes, the diffusion of robotic technology and newer graduates entering the workforce may augment the upward trend of RASP utilization.

Reasons to overthrow TURP: bring on Aquablation

PURPOSE

In this review, we will discuss the state of the literature regarding Aquablation, its limitations, and opportunities for its application in the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement (BPE).

METHODS

A comprehensive review of original research on Aquablation was conducted. Articles related to transurethral resection of the prostate, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, greenlight photoselective vaporization of the prostate, and simple prostatectomy were reviewed for discussion.

RESULTS

For small-medium prostates (30-80 mL), Aquablation's main advantages include better ejaculatory function and similar functional outcomes compared to TURP. For large prostates (80-150 mL), Aquablation demonstrates shorter operative time and superior ejaculatory function when compared to simple prostatectomy, HoLEP, and Greenlight PVP. In addition, Aquablation displays shorter hospital stays than simple prostatectomy. The integration of software programming and semi-automatic technology increases the reproducibility of the procedure and helps standardize overall outcomes, while also accelerating the learning curve. Its ability to preserve antegrade ejaculation makes Aquablation a very compelling option for sexually active patients. However cost and postoperative bleeding risks remain a concern.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence suggests that Aquablation is a safe and effective alternative for BPE for small to large prostates. Further prospective clinical trials, with comparisons to other BPE modalities, and data from longer follow-up periods are still required.

Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy: a large single-center prospective cohort study

BACKROUND

The aim of our study was to analyze outcomes and safety of laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) in a high-volume center.

METHODS

A consecutive series of men with lower urinary tract symptoms and large prostates (>80 cc) prospectively enrolled between November 2015 and December 2017 in one center. All patients underwent laparoscopic simple prostatectomy. Outcomes were evaluated considering the trifecta favorable outcome which was defined as a combination of the following items: 1) no perioperative complications; 2) postoperative IPSS <8; 3) postoperative Q<inf>max</inf> >15 mL/s. Complications were evaluated according to the modified Clavien classification system. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of a positive trifecta outcome.

RESULTS

Overall 272 patients were enrolled. At three months after surgery median IPSS total score was 4 (IQR: 3-7), median IPSS QoL was 1 (IQR:1-2), median prostate-specific antigen was 0.53 (IQR: 0.33-1.00) ng/ml and median Q<inf>max</inf> was 23 (IQR: 17-30) mL/s. All these parameters improved statistically when compared to baseline (P<0.001). The overall complication rate was 21% however most of the complications were low grade complications according to modified Clavien-Dindo classification (grade ≤2). Overall, 68% of the patients presented a positive trifecta outcome. On multivariate analysis only preoperative hemoglobin and hospital stay were confirmed predictors of positive trifecta outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

LSP represents a safe and effective procedure in the treatment of large adenomas. Although RCTs are needed before reaching definitive conclusions, LSP is a promising technique for patients with LUTS and large prostates.

Comparison of < 100 cc prostates and > 100 cc prostates undergoing aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia

INTRODUCTION

Surgical options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) become limited when treating large prostates due to steep learning curves and less effective treatment. Aquablation (AquaBeam System, PROCEPT BioRobotics, Inc., USA) could remedy this. We compare the effectiveness of Aquablation in large prostates between 80 cc and 100 cc and very large prostates > 100 cc.

METHODS

WATER II (NCT03123250) is a prospective, multicenter, international clinical trial of Aquablation for the surgical treatment of LUTS/BPH in men of age 45-80 years with prostates between 80 cc and 150 cc. Aquablation was performed using the AquaBeam System. The reported analysis compares the subgroup of patients with a baseline prostate size of < 100 cc versus those with a prostate size of > 100 cc. Students' t test was used for continuous variables and Fisher's test for ordinal/binary variables.

RESULTS

Of 114 screened patients, 101 meeting eligibility criteria were enrolled at 13 US and 3 Canadian sites between September and December 2017. Mean operative time was 31.2 ± 8 min in the < 100 cc subgroup and 41.7 ± 14.9 min in the > 100 cc subgroup. The average length of stay following the procedure for the < 100 cc subgroup was 1.5 ± 0.7 days versus 1.7 ± 1.1 days for the > 100 cc subgroup. Mean changes in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life, and IPSS voiding and storage subscores were substantial, occurring soon after treatment and averaging (at 3 months) 16.5, 2.8, 10.6, and 5.8 points, respectively (all p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Aquablation clinically normalizes outcomes between patients of the < 100 cc and > 100 cc prostate cohorts. It is safe and effective in patients with large prostate glands (> 100 cc) with a smoother learning curve.

Photovaporization of the prostate with GreenLight™ laser 180 W XPS versus transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar energy for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement: a cost-utility analysis from a healthcare perspective

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-utility of the photovaporization of the prostate (PVP) with GreenLight™ laser 180 W XPS compared to transurethral resection of the prostate with monopolar energy (M-TURP) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) from a healthcare perspective in Colombia.

METHODS

We designed a Markov model to compare four health states following treatment with either PVP or M-TURP to estimate expected costs and outcomes. We used the results of the only randomized clinical trial published to date comparing PVP versus M-TURP to estimate surgical outcomes, complications, re-operation and re-intervention rates. Time horizon was defined at 2 years with four cycles of 6 months each. Resource-use estimation involved a random selection of clinical records from a local institution and cost list from public healthcare system. Costs were obtained in Colombian pesos and converted to US dollars. Threshold was defined at three-times the Colombian gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were used based on the utilities of the available literature. Uncertainty was analyzed with deterministic and probabilistic models using a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent PVP gained 1.81 QALYs compared to 1.59 with M-TURP. Costs were US$6797.98 and US$7777.59 for M-TURP and PVP, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$4452.81 per QALY, favoring PVP as a cost-effective alternative in our context.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, with current prices, PVP is cost-effective when compared to M-TURP for LUTS due to BPE for a 2-year time horizon.

Aquablation outcomes for the U.S. cohort of men with LUTS due to BPH in large prostates (80-150 cc)

Between September and December 2017, 82 men with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia LUTS/BPH and prostate volume of 80-150 cc underwent Aquablation in a prospective multicenter clinical trial in the United States. Baseline patient and clinical demographics and standardized postoperative parameters were collected and tabulated in a central independently monitored database. Adverse events through 3 months were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. Mean pre-treatment prostate volume was 108 ± 21.1 cc. Mean operative time was 38.2 ± 14.4 min and mean Aquablation resection time was 7.7 ± 3.3 min. Additional electrocautery for hemostasis was not needed in any patient following Aquablation. The average length of stay following the procedure was 1.6 ± 1.0 days. Mean pre- and 3 months post-treatment IPSS scores were 23.7 ± 6.4 and 7.1 ± 5.1, -16.6, p < 0.01. Mean pre- and 3 months post-treatment Qmax were 9.2 ± 3.3 ml/s and 19.5 ± 13 ml/s, + 10.8 ml/s, p < 0.01. Mean pre- and 3 months post-treatment post-void residuals were 120.6 ± 119.1 cc and 50.6 ± 61.6 cc, -72.0 cc, p < 0.01. The observed Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher event rate at 3 months was 34.1%. Aquablation is a safe and effective treatment option for men with large prostates (80-150 cc) suffering from LUTS/BPH.

Pooled Aquablation Results for American Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Large Prostates (60-150 cc)

INTRODUCTION

To present short-term safety and efficacy data of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treated with Aquablation.

METHODS

Men with LUTs secondary to BPH (60-150 cc) underwent Aquablation treatment from February 2016 to December 2017 across 17 investigational sites in the USA from two contemporary investigational device exemption (IDE) studies called WATER (NCT02505919) and WATER II (NCT03123250).

RESULTS

One hundred seven males with mean age of 67.3 ± 6.5 years were treated with Aquablation; mean prostate volume was 99.4 ± 24.1 cc. The pooled results show that large prostates have an average procedure time of less than 36 min and discharge on average 1.6 ± 1 days. The IPSS decreased by 16.7 ± 8.1 points at 3 months and Q_max increased by 11.2 ± 12.4 ml/s. The Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade 2 or higher event rate at 3 months was 29%. A non-hierarchical breakdown for CD events yielded 18% grade 2 and 19% grade 3 or higher.

CONCLUSION

Men with LUTS secondary to BPH (60-150 cc) in a pooled analysis were treated safely and effectively with Aquablation up to 3 months postoperatively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT02505919 and NCT03123250.

FUNDING

PROCEPT BioRobotics.