Is thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate equally safe and effective in elderly patients? A propensity score matched analysis of early perioperative and functional outcomes

Minimally invasive surgical therapies for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the geriatric population: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Geriatric patients, prone to adverse events (AEs) and low compliance with drugs, may benefit from minimally invasive surgical therapies (MISTs) for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and procedural characteristics of MISTs in geriatric patients with BPH.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE database was systematically searched for relevant articles through October 1, 2023. Eligible studies focused on geriatric patients (≥65 years) with BPH who were treated with MISTs and evaluated follow-up surgical, micturition, and/or sexual outcomes. Studies were included if there was separate reporting for age subgroups ≥65 years, or if the mean age minus standard deviation was ≥65 years, or if the first quartile was ≥65 years.

RESULTS

Out of 292 screened studies, 32 (N = 3972 patients) met inclusion criteria and assessed prostatic artery embolization (PAE), Rezum, GreenLight, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP), diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP), and Aquablation. Except for Rezum, all MISTs required a planned overnight stay. While PAE and Rezum could be performed under local anesthesia, the other MISTs needed general or spinal anesthesia. Postoperative catheterization duration was longest for PAE (median 14 days) and Rezum (21 days) and shortest for GreenLight (1.9 days). At 12 months postoperatively, all MISTs exhibited significant percent changes in International Prostate Symptom Score (median -69.9%) and quality of life (median -72.5%). Clavien-Dindo Grade 1 AEs ranged widely, with PAE (5.8%-36.8%), Rezum (0%-62.1%), and GreenLight (0%-67.6%) having the largest range, and HoLEP (0%-9.5%), ThuLEP (2%-6.9%), and DiLEP (5%-17.5%) having the smallest. PAE, Rezum, DiLEP, and Aquablation reported no significant changes in the International Index of Erectile Function.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all the MISTs reviewed in this study effectively treat BPH in geriatric patients, differences in procedural characteristics and safety profiles across MISTs were considerable. Physicians should use shared decision-making processes, considering risks and patient characteristics, when choosing a suitable treatment option for their patients.

Thulium laser enucleation of prostate versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy in the treatment of large benign prostatic hyperplasia: head-to-head comparison

OBJECTIVES

To compare thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy (LSP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent surgery for "large" BPH (>80mL) at three Institutions were collected and analyzed. Two institutions performed ThuLEP only; the third institution performed LSP only. Preoperative (indwelling catheter status, prostate volume (PVol), hemoglobin (Hb), Qmax, post-voiding residual volume (PVR), IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5) and perioperative data (operative time, enucleated adenoma, catheterization time, length of stay, Hb-drop, complications) were compared. Functional (Qmax, PVR, %ΔQmax) and patient-reported outcomes (IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5, %ΔIPSS, %ΔQoL) were compared at last follow-up.

RESULTS

80 and 115 patients underwent LSP and ThuLEP, respectively. At baseline, median PVol was 130 versus 120mL, p <0.001; Qmax 9.6 vs. 7.1mL/s, p=0.005; IPSS 21 versus 25, p <0.001. Groups were comparable in terms of intraoperative complications (1 during LSP vs. 3 during ThuLEP) and transfusions (1 per group). Differences in terms of operative time (156 vs. 92 minutes, p <0.001), Hb-drop (-2.5 vs. -0.9g/dL, p <0.001), catheterization time (5 vs. 2 days, p <0.001) and postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 0, p <0.001) favored ThuLEP. At median follow-up of 40 months after LSP versus 30 after ThuLEP (p <0.001), Qmax improved by 226% vs. 205% (p=0.5), IPSS decreased by 88% versus 85% (p=0.9), QoL decreased by 80% with IIEF-5 remaining almost unmodified for both the approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed that LSP and ThuLEP are comparable in relieving from BPO and improving the patient-reported outcomes. Invasiveness of LSP is more significant.