Safety and Effectiveness of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Using a Low-power Laser

Influence of Early Apical Release on Outcomes in Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate: Results From a Multicenter Series of 4392 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes after laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) stratified by whether early apical release (EAR) was performed or not.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent EEP with holmium or thulium fiber laser in 8 centers (January 2020-January 2022).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

previous prostate/urethral surgery, prostate cancer, pelvic radiotherapy, concomitant lower urinary tract surgery. One-to-one propensity score-matching was performed between patients with EAR vs no EAR, with covariates including age, prostate volume, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, preoperative indwelling catheter, IPSS, Qmax, enucleation, and laser types. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate independent predictors of 30-day postoperative complications and urinary incontinence.

RESULTS

EAR was performed in 2094 of 4392 included patients. The matched cohort consisted of 787 patients per arm. Total operation time was significantly longer in the EAR group (median 75 vs 67 minutes, P = .004). Early complications were higher in the EAR group (18.6% vs 12.5%, P = .001), while postoperative incontinence rates were similar (14.1% vs 13.1%, P = .61). Multivariable regression analysis showed that 3-lobe enucleation and operation time were significant predictors of postoperative complications; preoperative indwelling catheterization, higher prostate volume, and en-bloc enucleation were associated with higher odds of postoperative incontinence.

LIMITATION

retrospective nature.

CONCLUSION

Performing EAR during EEP is associated with a greater incidence of early complications, which was mainly driven by higher rates of postoperative hematuria and perioperative transfusion. The risk of postoperative incontinence and its duration are not affected by EAR.

Histopathological assessment of depth of coagulation necrosis with Holmium, Moses, and Thulium fiber lasers in human prostate tissue

PURPOSE

To evaluate coagulation necrosis depth (CND) of Holmium (HL), Moses (ML), and Thulium fiber laser (TFL) in ex vivo human prostate tissue at various energy settings.

METHODS

After endoscopic HL enucleation, small prostate tissue fragments were removed from the bladder with graspers and used for study. Immediately after surgery, a single incision was made on the surface of the tissue kept under normal saline at room temperature using a hand-held 550-µm laser fiber. Variable energy settings were tested for all three lasers. Two pathologists measured the CND with light microscopy using ocular micrometer. Impact of various laser settings on CND was analyzed. The differences in CND of all three lasers at similar laser power were compared.

RESULTS

Mean CND was 0.56 ± 0.53 mm for long-pulse HL, 0.54 ± 0.53 mm for ML, 0.67 ± 0.67 mm for low-pulse TFL, and 0.81 ± 0.78 mm for high-pulse TFL. There was no significant difference between mean CND of HL and ML at various laser settings ranging from 10 to 120 W and CND with long- and short-pulse settings of TFL at settings from 10 to 60 W. There was a trend of increasing CND in HL and ML with increasing laser power; however, it was not statistically significant. TFL had similar tissue effects as HL and ML.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference in CND of HL, ML, and TFL in ex vivo human prostate tissue. Other factors besides laser type and settings need to be studied to explain clinical differences among various lasers used for prostate enucleation.

Efficacy and safety of low power holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: A prospective short- and medium-term single-blind randomized trial

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of mid-term follow-up in low-power (LP) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) compared with high-power (HP) surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study was conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. Ninety male patients >50 years who underwent HoLEP for BPH were randomly assigned to HP (80 W/2 J/40 Hz) and LP (24 W/2 J/12 Hz) groups. The primary endpoint was the total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) six months after surgery. The secondary endpoints were perioperative results and postoperative outcomes at two weeks, three and six months after the surgery, including Clavien-Dindo complication classification.

RESULTS

At six months after HoLEP, 41 and 42 patients were followed up in the HP and LP groups, respectively. There was no difference in the preoperative characteristics between the two groups. The prostate volumes were 67.1±23.7 mL for the HP group and 64.3±25.7 mL for the LP group (p=0.592), respectively. Although the total operative time was significantly longer by 13.1 minutes in the LP group (47.8±20.3 min vs. 60.9±23.3 min, p=0.006), the total delivered energy was significantly lower, which was only about 68% of the HP group (58.2±23.9 kJ vs. 39.9±13.2 kJ, p<0.001). Surgical outcomes significantly improved postoperatively in both groups compared to baseline, except for storage symptoms. Improvement in IPSS storage subscore was observed from the immediate postoperative 2 weeks in the LP group (8.1±3.1 to 6.9±3.8, p<0.001), whereas there was no significant recovery in the HP group (8.0±3.2 to 7.7±3.4, p=0.842). In the 6-month follow, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the IPSS total score (5.9±5.6 vs. 7.3±5.3, p=0.260) as well as IPSS storage subscore. In addition, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications, including bleeding or urinary incontinence, between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The HoLEP procedure performed using an LP laser device resulted in lower total delivered energy, faster recovery, and significantly improved surgical outcomes up to mid-term follow-up. There was no difference in efficiency or safety between the HP device system.

Low- vs. High-Power Laser for Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) constitutes an established technique for treating patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction. Most surgeons perform surgeries using high-power (HP) settings. Nevertheless, HP laser machines are costly, require high-power sockets, and may be linked with increased postoperative dysuria. Low-power (LP) lasers could overcome these drawbacks without compromising postoperative outcomes. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of data regarding LP laser settings during HoLEP, as most endourologists are hesitant to apply them in their clinical practice. We aimed to provide an up-to-date narrative looking at the impact of LP settings in HoLEP and comparing LP with HP HoLEP. According to current evidence, intra- and post-operative outcomes as well as complication rates are independent of the laser power level. LP HoLEP is feasible, safe, and effective and may improve postoperative irritative and storage symptoms.

Efficiency and clinical outcomes of Moses technology for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: An evidence-based analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the safety and clinical efficacy of Moses laser enucleation of the prostate (MoLEP) with those of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang databases, and SinoMed databases. The retrieval period was from the establishment of the database to March 2022. Stata17.0 was used for calculations and statistical analyses.

RESULTS

This study included 12 articles comprising 1160 patients for meta-analysis. Compared with those of the HoLEP group, the hemostasis time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -4.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-6.47, -2.84], p < 0.001), enucleation time (WMD = -7.23, 95% CI [-10.67, -3.79], p < 0.001), operative time (WMD = -15.02, 95% CI [-20.50, -9.53], p< 0.001), length of hospital stay (WMD = -15.02, 95% CI [-20.50, -9.53], p< 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -11.19, 95% CI [-12.94, -9.44], p< 0.001), and total postoperative complications rate (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.32, 0.81], p = 0.004) were shorter in the MoLEP group. Postoperative quality of life (WMD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.00, 0.59], p = 0.047) was lower in the HoLEP group, and there were no statistically significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score, postoperative maximum urinary flow rate, and postoperative residual urine (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

MoLEP has more advantages than HoLEP in terms of safety, shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer complications. However, this conclusion needs to be verified with a larger sample size, longer follow-up time, and multicenter randomized controlled trial data.

Ureteroscopic holmium laser to transect the greater omentum to remove an abdominal drain: Four case reports

BACKGROUND

Drainage tube removal is difficult when the greater omentum becomes incarcerated in the drainage tube through the side holes. Currently, known removal methods are either ineffective or will cause additional damage to the patient in a secondary operation. Ureteroscopy and the holmium laser have been used in various surgical techniques in urology, and in theory, they are expected to be a good strategy for solving the problem of tissue incarceration.

CASE SUMMARY

Four patients diagnosed with difficult removal of an abdominal drainage tube following abdominal surgery are reported. All patients underwent surgery to remove the incarcerated greater omentum in the drainage tube using a holmium laser and a ureteroscope, and a new 16-F drain was then placed in the abdominal or pelvic cavity. The efficacy of this technique was evaluated by intraoperative conditions, success rate, and operating time; safety was evaluated by perioperative conditions and the probability of postoperative complications. All four operations went smoothly, and the drains were successfully removed in all patients. The average operating time was 24.5 min. Intraoperatively, the average irrigation volume was 892.0 mL, the average drainage volume was 638.5 mL, and no bleeding or damage to surrounding tissues was observed. Postoperatively, the average drainage volume was 32.8 mL and the new drains were removed within 36 h. All patients were able to get out of bed and move around within 12 h. Their visual analogue pain scores were all below 3. The average follow-up duration was 12.5 mo and no complications such as fever or bleeding were noted.

CONCLUSION

Ureteroscopic holmium laser surgery is an effective, safe and minimally invasive technique for removing drains where the greater omentum is incarcerated in the abdominal drain.

Does MOSES pulse modulation reduce short-term catheter reinsertion following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate?

Purpose

Previously published studies have shown small prostate size, capsular perforation and intraoperative bladder distension are associated with failed trial without a catheter (TWOC) after HoLEP. The study objective was to determine the relationship between MOSES pulse modulation versus standard laser technology and short-term catheter reinsertion following failed TWOC.

Materials and Methods

The study included 487 patients who underwent HoLEP, using standard holmium laser settings (180 patients) or MOSES pulse modulation (255 patients), between August 2018 and February 2021. Catheter reinsertion defined as reinsertion following failed TWOC within 30 days of surgery. Association of pulse modulation with catheter reinsertion was examined using single and multivariable logistic regression models. Comparisons of pre and intraoperative characteristics between patients treated without and with pulse modulation were made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test for numeric characteristics or Fisher’s exact test for categorical characteristics.

Results

Short-term catheter reinsertion occurred in 14% (26/180) of the standard laser setting group as compared with 10% (24/252) of the pulse modulation group. There was no statistically significant association with short-term catheter reinsertion in single (unadjusted OR [standard settings vs. pulse modulation], 1.60; 95% CI, 0.80–2.91; p=0.12) or multivariable analysis adjusting for specimen weight and operative time (adjusted OR [standard settings vs. pulse modulation], 1.44; 95% CI, 0.77–2.68; p=0.25).

Conclusions

In this study, we found no association between post-HoLEP short-term catheter reinsertion following failed TWOC and MOSES pulse modulation. Although MOSES pulse modulation offers several well-documented advantages, catheter reinsertion events appear to be attributable to other factors.

Does the power of the laser devices matter for a successful HoLEP procedure? A prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this prospective study were to evaluate the efficiency, safety and applicability of medium-power (MP) holmium laser devices in the endoscopic enucleation of the enlarged prostate (HoLEP) compared with high-power (HP) laser devices.

METHODS

From October 2019 to July 2020, a total of 120 consecutive patients planned for HoLEP were divided randomly into two groups formed in terms of the power of the device used. While patients in group 1 were treated with a MP device (50 W) at 39.6 W (2.2 J/18 Hz), patients in group 2 were treated with HP (100 W) device at 42 W (1.2 J/35 Hz). Preoperative patient characteristics, perioperative measures and 3-month functional outcomes were evaluated in both groups with an emphasis on enucleation efficiency (EE) and haemoglobin decrease in a comparative manner.

RESULTS

All patients underwent successful HoLEP surgery with no severe perioperative and postoperative complications. No statistically significant differences were observed in terms of preoperative patient characteristics and perioperative measures in the two groups. The median EE values in groups 1 and 2 were 1.15 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.33-2.2) and 1.11 (IQR: 0.4-2.8), respectively (P = .775). Haemoglobin decrease values in groups 1 and 2 were 1.3 (IQR: 0.1-4) and 1.4 (IQR: 0.4-3.1), respectively (P = .736). There was no difference in terms of either catheterisation time or hospital stay in the groups. In the model created to predict haemoglobin decrease, only biopsy was detected to be the independent predictive factor among the data from laser device, biopsy and antithrombotic use. Functional outcomes markedly improved in all patients without any statistically significant difference between the groups in the 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our comparative study indicated that HoLEP can be performed safely and effectively with MP laser devices without any technical difficulties and with comparable results achieved in HP laser devices.

Perioperative Outcomes of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to systematically review the literature and describe perioperative complications of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), including the Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications.

METHODS

All English language publications on HoLEP were evaluated. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to evaluate PubMed®, Scopus®, and Web of Science™ databases from January 1, 1998, to June 1, 2020.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies were included, for a total of 10,371 procedures. We distinguished between intra-, peri-, and postoperative complications. Overall, the rate of complications is 0-7%. Intraoperative complications include incomplete morcellation (2.3%), capsular perforation (2.2%), bladder (2.4%), and ureteric orifice (0.4%) injuries. Perioperative complications include postoperative urinary retention (0.2%), hematuria and clot retention (2.6%), and cystoscopy for clot evacuation (0.7%). Postoperative complications include dysuria (7.5%), stress (4.0%), urge (1.8%), transient (7%) and permanent (1.3%) urinary incontinence, urethral stricture (2%) and bladder neck contracture (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

HoLEP is a safe procedure, with a satisfactory low complication rate. The most common reported perioperative complications are not severe (Clavien-Dindo classification grades 1-2). Further randomized studies are certainly warranted to fully determine the predictor of surgical complications in order to prevent them and improve this technique.

Comparison of different en bloc holmium laser enucleation of the prostate techniques to reduce the rate of postoperative transient urinary incontinence

Objective

To investigate postoperative risk factors for transient urinary incontinence (TUI) after different en bloc holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) techniques.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 169 consecutive patients who underwent HoLEP using the original en bloc technique (n = 41), en bloc with early mucosal strip detachment technique (n = 72), and three horseshoe-shaped incisions technique (n = 56) to treat bladder outlet obstruction from January 2017 to October 2019. Preoperative variables and surgical quality indexes were compared between the groups. TUI was defined as any hygienic or social problem caused by involuntary loss of urine at 2 weeks postoperatively. The postvoid residual urine volume, maximum urinary flow rate, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) were assessed.

Results

Among all three techniques, the three horseshoe-shaped incisions technique was significantly associated with the lowest incidence of TUI and the lowest IPSS. Although not statistically significant, the three horseshoe-shaped incisions group also showed a trend toward a faster enucleation time. No life-threatening intraoperative complications occurred in any group.

Conclusion

Use of three horseshoe-shaped incisions in en bloc HoLEP prevented urethral sphincter damage with a low rate of postoperative TUI. Further long-term, multicenter comparative assessment is required.

Research Registry number: 6848

Watt matters: Safety and efficacy of using a 140-W high-powered holmium laser for enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP)

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the perioperative and the 12-month efficacy and safety of 140 W high-powered holmium laser for enucleation of the prostate (HP-HoLEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The data of 540 patients who underwent HoLEP by a single surgeon were analyzed retrospectively. Preoperative evaluation included a physical examination with a digital rectal examination, measurement of maximum urinary flow rate (Q_max), postvoid residual volume (PVR) and prostate volume by transabdominal ultrasonography, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), international prostate symptom score (I-PSS) and international index of erectile function-5 (IIEF-5) questionnaires, and urine analysis. Morcellation, enucleation, and operation efficiencies were calculated with the resected weight divided by morcellation, enucleation, and operative times, respectively. The patients were reassessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery by I-PSS, IIEF-5, Q_max, PSA, and the occurrence of complications.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 65.2±20.9 minutes. The mean enucleation time and efficiency were 53±15.1 minutes and 1.72±0.4 g/min, respectively. The mean morcellation time and efficiency were 12.3±15.1 minutes and 7.4±3.2 g/min respectively. Clavien grade 1 complications were observed in 102 (18.9%) patients, Clavien grade 2 complications in 20 (3.7%) patients, and Clavien grade 3b complications in 23 (5.4%) patients. I-PSS, Q_max, and IIEF-5 at postoperative 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were significantly better than baseline results.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that 140 W HP-HoLEP can be performed with high enucleation efficiency, low perioperative and postoperative complication rates, and excellent functional results.

A randomized controlled trial comparing high and medium power settings for holmium laser enucleation of prostate

PURPOSE

To report the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes between medium power (MP) and high power (HP) laser settings for HoLEPs.

METHODS

The primary objective was to compare the enucleation efficiency (EE) of HP- HoLEP (80-100 W) with MP-HoLEP (50 - 60 W). The secondary objectives were to compare treatment efficacy and safety between both groups. To show a 25% difference in EE, a sample size of 45 individuals per treatment arm was required (alpha = 0.05; Beta = 0.80). Patients demographic and perioperative factors were analyzed, including EE, hemoglobin drop, duration of catheterization, and length of hospital stay. The surgical outcome was evaluated with AUA symptom score, maximum flow rate, postvoid residual urine, and complications to assess differences between MP and HP HoLEP at baseline, 3 months, 1, and 5 years. Quantitative outcomes were compared with independent sample t tests (2-tailed) and qualitative outcomes were compared with chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Preoperative data with the exception of indication for surgery were comparable in both treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference in enucleation efficiency between the HP-HoLEP and MP-HoLEP laser setting (0.97 ± 0.47 vs. 0.85 ± 0.47 gm/min, p = 0.209). MP laser settings did not increase perioperative or postoperative complications and resulted in durable outcome comparable with HP laser settings at 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

MP-HoLEP is safe and efficient and does not compromise the outcome for HoLEPs when compared with HP-HoLEP.

Combined top-down approach with low-power thulium laser enucleation of prostate: evaluation of one-year functional outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of combined top and down low power thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between May 2017 and May 2019, after institutional board review approval, successfully consented patients underwent combined top and down low power ThuLEP. We used a 30 -W Thulium laser with a 550 μm laser fiber and a 26 Fr continuous flow resectoscope. We collected data related to prostate size, enucleation time, morcellation time, perioperative complications, and early outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty patients underwent combined Top and down low power ThuLEP with mean age 67 ± 8. Acute urine retention was the main indication for surgery in 22% of patients, while the remaining had mean IPPS score 26 ± 3. The mean prostate volume was 102 ± 25 ml and the mean Qmax was 6 ± 2 ml/sec. Mean operative time was 103 ± 25 min, while; mean enucleation time was 80 ± 12 min, and mean morcellation time was 17 ± 6 min. The mean enucleated prostate volume was 73 ± 16 g and the mean hemoglobin drop was 1 ± 0.2 mg/dl. There was no need for blood transfusion and the mean hospital stay was 18 ± 4 h and catheters were removed on discharge. The 1st visit was at one month, and we observed significant mean Qmax improvement18 ± 5 ml/s. Our results showed no significant change of IIEF-5 score at 12-month follow-up compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

Low-power Thulium enucleation with a combined top and down technique provided a safe and efficacious outcome, that may reduce strenuous wrist flexion and eliminate the need for high-power Thulium laser device.

Preoperative predictors of enucleation time during en bloc 'no-touch' holmium laser enucleation of the prostate

Background

To evaluate preoperative predictors of enucleation time during en bloc ‘no-touch’ holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP)

Methods

We enrolled 135 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treated with en bloc ‘no-touch’ HoLEP from July 2017 to March 2019 by a single surgeon. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative clinical variables were examined. Stepwise linear regression was performed to determine clinical variables associated with enucleation times.

Result

The average (range) enucleation time was 46.1 (12–220) minutes, and the overall operation time was 71 (18–250) minutes. History of antiplatelet agents, history of urinary tract infection (UTI), and increasing specimen weight were each significantly associated with increasing enucleation time. No category IV complications were recorded, and all complications were evenly distributed among the groups according to the HoLEP specimen weight.

Conclusion

En bloc ‘no-touch’ HoLEP was found to be an efficient and reproducible surgical method for treating BPH. Prostatic gland size was significantly associated with increased enucleation times. Similarly, history of UTI and antiplatelet agents were correlated with increased operative time.

'Seven-step two-lobe' HoLEP: a modification to gain efficiency of the enucleation applying relatively low-power holmium laser devices

PURPOSE

In order to increase the efficiency of the low-power holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (LP-HoLEP), and introduce it as a standard surgery for BPH, we described a modified 'seven-step two-lobe' HoLEP (ST HoLEP) technique applying 60-W device in a stepwise manner.

METHODS

From July 2016 to August 2019, 120 patients who received LP-HoLEP at our hospital because of urinary tract symptoms caused by BPH were included in the study. The patients were assigned into two groups, 60 consecutive patients received modified ST HoLEP compared with another preexisting 60 consecutive patients who received the conventional three-lobe HoLEP (T HoLEP) before the technical modification. The clinical parameters, including patient characteristics, perioperative data, as well as voiding outcomes, and complications were evaluated after at least 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The median enucleation efficiency of the ST HoLEP was 0.72 gm/min, which was significantly higher than 0.62 gm/min of the T HoLEP. Despite the preoperative IPSS was slightly higher in T HoLEP group, the other preoperative and perioperative data showed no statistical difference between the two groups. After ST HoLEP procedure, the urinary incontinence rate was continually improved at 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up which were 13.3%, 6.7%, and 1.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in postoperative voiding outcomes and urinary continence results in 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The ST HoLEP technique was proved to increase the efficiency which was benefit from minimizing the surgical incision, facilitating the single surgical plane identification and maintenance during the whole enucleation procedure.

The low power effect on holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP); A comparison between 20W and 37,5W energy regarding apical enucleation efficacy and patient safety

INTRODUCTION

The Holmium laser has proven to be an invaluable tool for endoscopic prostate enucleation. The proper energy selection, during the different steps of the procedure, has always been a matter of debate. In this work we compare the effectiveness of the Holmium laser, using two different low-power energy settings, during enucleation and hemostasis (20W and 37.5W).

METHODS

One hundred and sixty patients underwent a HoLEP procedure with a 50Hz and 2J (100W) setting. During enuleation and hemostasis, two different low-power settings were applied (20W vs. 37.5W). In both groups, only the prostatic tissue in the bladder neck and enucleated tissue far away from the apex, were cut with a setting of 50Hz and 2J (100W).

RESULTS

The mean enucleation efficiency (0.78 vs. 1.2g/min-p:001) was significantly higher by utilizing 37.5W energy (group 2). Additionally, the mean enucleation rate (0.64 vs. 0.88%-P:0.001) and laser efficiency (2.07 vs. 2.12 joule/g-P:0.003) were significantly higher in group 2. The enucleation time was significantly shorter (54 vs. 75.5 mins-P:0.002), while the mean catheter removal time (27 vs. 42 hrs-P:0.008) and Hb decrease (0.5 vs. 0.6g/dl--P:0.019) were significantly lower in group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

HoLEP can be performed efficiently with 100 W-37.5W settings. Enucleation and hemostasis can be performed successfully with 37.5W, while the use of 100W during bladder neck dissection shortens the duration of the procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Advanced application of holmium: YAG laser combined ALA-PDT for the treatment of refractory condylomata acuminata in anal canal

BACKGROUND

Anal canal condylomata acuminata is a disease caused by the human papilloma virus. Conventional cauterizing laser treatment cannot achieve a satisfactory result owing to a high recurrence rate, and the application of 5-aminolaevulinic acid-photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT) also has limitations in the anal canal. Holmium yttrium aluminum garnet (Ho: YAG) laser with fiber is found to be effective at removing canal lesions, and may create suitable conditions for ALA-PDT. We aim to investigate the feasibility of Ho: YAG laser combined with ALA-PDT and to explore a more optimal therapy in refractory anal canal condylomata.

METHODS

Data of 37 patients with anal canal condylomata (number of warts≥ 10 lesions) from May 2017 to March 2019 were reviewed. In total 17 cases were treated with Ho: YAG laser plus ALA-PDT, and 20 patients treated with CO₂ laser plus ALA-PDT were selected as control. Wart clearance and recurrence rates were evaluated as well as laser complications.

RESULTS

Most warts (88.23 %) were removed after a session of Ho: YAG laser pretreatment. The average number of laser sessions required to clear all warts was 1.94 in the Ho: YAG laser plus ALA-PDT group. Meanwhile, no wound infections or defecation disfunctions were found. Ho: YAG laser with ALA-PDT could significantly reduce wart recurrence rates (17.6 %) in comparison with CO₂ laser with ALA-PDT (55 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Ho: YAG laser combined with ALA-PDT raised the cure rate of refractory anal canal condylomata and has important guidance implications for clinical application.

En-bloc endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains the gold standard for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Yet, the introduction of lasers for the treatment of LUTS due to BPO has dramatically changed the surgical landscape of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) treatment. Recently, "en-bloc" techniques have shown to prove advantageous in terms of better visualization, more prompt identification of the surgical capsule and the correct plane to dissect. Herein we provide a comprehensive overview of available series of en-bloc enucleation of the prostate, focusing on surgical techniques, perioperative and functional outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to PRISMA recommendations and was conducted on surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive en-bloc surgery for prostate adenoma detachment.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 16 studies with 2750 patients between 2003 and 2019 were included. Specific technical nuances have been described to maximize perioperative outcomes of en-bloc prostatic enucleation, including early apical release, horse-shape incisions, inverted U-shape tractions and low power. Overall, regardless of the energy employed, en-bloc prostatic enucleation achieved favorable outcomes including low risk of major complications and quality of life improvement. However, a great heterogeneity of study design, patients' inclusion criteria, prostate volume and en-bloc surgical strategy was found.

CONCLUSIONS

En-bloc endoscopic enucleation of the prostate has been shown to be technically feasible and safe, with potential technical advantages over the classic three-lobe technique. Larger comparative studies are needed to evaluate the ultimate impact of the en-bloc approach on postoperative outcomes, in light of the surgeon's learning curve.

Comparative Study of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate With MOSES Enabled Pulsed Laser Modulation

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes for patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostate hyperplasia using 3 different laser fibers and 2 different laser energy modes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a review of a clinic registry of men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostate hyperplasia who underwent HoLEP between August 2018 and January 2019. Patients were assigned to group 1 (50 patients), group 2 (50 patients), and group 3 (50 patients) based on the HoLEP being completed with either a Slimline 550µm, Slimline 1000µm, or MOSES 550 µm laser, respectively. The groups were compared using SSPS for ANOVA comparison of means and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Ten patients who underwent concomitant stone surgery (2 PCNL, 8 ureteroscopy , 3 bilateral cases) and 11 patients had bladder stones removed; ancillary procedures did not significantly differ between groups(P = .2). Prostate enucleation times differed significantly (22.5 + 7.3, 16.4 + 6.9, 18.1 + 8.6 minutes P ≤.001) between groups. However, statistical significance was lost once enucleation time was indexed against enucleated tissue weight. Time to achieve hemostasis (minutes) was statistically different between groups (10.6 + 6.1, 7.7 + 5.2, 6.3 + 4.8 P <.001). This difference in hemostatic time was maintained on multilogistic regression demonstrating that MOSES laser enucleation was associated with a 3.9-minute decrease time to achieve hemostasis after enucleation compared to Slimline 550 HoLEP (P <.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that modulated pulsed laser energy can improve hemostasis during the enucleation phase of a HoLEP resulting in shorter Operating Room times.

Evidence-based outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has been a mainstay therapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) for nearly 20 years. We briefly review current and sentinel publications that provide outcomes data after HoLEP.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current literature continues to support HoLEP as a versatile and durable surgical option for men with LUTS secondary to BPH. Despite evidence supporting durable symptom relief beyond 10 years even in large prostate glands, HoLEP is still not widely available to all patients. Concerns surrounding the learning curve of the procedure, high rates of retrograde ejaculation, and transient urinary incontinence seem to persist and limit the adoption of HoLEP by established urologists and residency training programs.

SUMMARY

Recent publications continue to show excellent short-term and long-term outcomes after HoLEP, in the categories of voiding function and patient satisfaction. Continued attempts to demonstrate equivalent outcomes of alternate-BPH surgical techniques are being met with renewed efforts by those performing HoLEP to demonstrate equivalent outcomes and patient safety during the learning phase of HoLEP for both mentored and self-directed surgical training.

Enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia thulium laser versus holmium laser: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of thulium laser vapoenucleation/enucleation of the prostate (ThuEP) versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify eligible studies published before July 2018. Meta-analysis of extracted data was performed with RevMan version 5.3. We chose the fixed- or random-effect model to fit the pooled heterogeneity. Five eligible studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three non-RCTs involving 1010 patients were enrolled in our meta-analysis. ThuEP provided less enucleation time when compared with HoLEP (WMD = - 7.73, 95% CI - 14.39-1.07, P = 0.02). During the 1st, 6th, and 12th months of postoperative follow-ups, statistically significant differences were found in Qmax (WMD = 2.05, 95% CI 0.52~3.58) and PVR (WMD = - 6.50, 95% CI - 7.35~- 5.66, P < 0.001) in the 1st month after the operation, also in IPSS (IPSS: WMD = - 1.29, 95% CI - 2.39~- 0.19, P = 0.02) in the 12th month after the operation. As regards other perioperative, postoperative parameters, and complication rates, we found no significant difference. Both ThuEP and HoLEP provided satisfactory micturition improvement with low morbidity after the 1st and 6th months of the operation. However, ThuEP showed higher enucleation efficacy and less intraoperative blood loss and may get a better outcome as compared to the HoLEP group in the early postoperative period with regard to Qmax/PVR and IPSS after the 1st and 12th months of the operation respectively.

Low-Power Vs High-Power Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Critical Assessment through Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the non-inferiority of Low-power Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (LP-HoLEP) to high-power (HP-HoLEP) for enucleation efficiency pertaining to the advantages of lower cost and minimal postoperative dysuria, storage symptoms, and negative sexual impact.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

HoLEP was performed using 100W Versapulse, Luminis Inc., with 2J/25Hz for LP-HoLEP (61 patients) and 2J/50Hz for HP-HoLEP (60 patients). Two surgeons with different experience performed equal number of both procedures. Non-inferiority of enucleation efficiency (enucleated weight/min) was evaluated. All perioperative parameters were recorded and compared. Dysuria was assessed at 2 weeks by dysuria visual analog scale, urinary (Q.max and IPSS) and sexual (sexual health inventory for men score) outcome measures were evaluated at 1, 4, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Baseline and perioperative parameters were comparable between the two groups. Mean enucleation efficiency was 1.42±0.6 vs 1.47±0.6 gm/min, P = .6 following LP-HoLEP and HP-HoLEP, respectively. Patients reported postoperative dysuria similarly in both groups as per dysuria visual analog scale. There was significant comparable improvement in IPSS (international prostate symptom score) and Q.max in both groups at different follow-up points. At one year, median IPSS and Q.max were comparable in both groups (P = .4 and .7 following LP-HoLEP and HP-HoLEP, respectively). Median postoperative reduction in prostate specific antigen was 89% (42:99) following LP-HoLEP vs 81% (62:94) after HP-HoLEP, P = .92. Both groups showed comparable perioperative and late postoperative complications. There were no statistically significant changes in the last follow-up sexual health inventory for men score in comparison to baseline score.

CONCLUSION

LP-HoLEP is non-inferior to HP-HoLEP in terms of all efficiency parameters regardless level of surgeon experience.