Two-year Follow-up in Bipolar Transurethral Enucleation and Resection of the Prostate in Comparison with Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Treatment of Large Prostates. Randomized Controlled Trial

Two-year follow-up comparing Rezūm therapy versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. A prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of Rezūm therapy and bipolar transurethral resection of prostate (B-TURP) for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) of 50-120 g size.

METHODS

One hundred patients with BPH who met the inclusion criteria were included and split into two equal groups to undergo Rezūm therapy or B-TURP. The two groups were compared for efficacy using international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), operative time, catheter time, hospital stay, post-void residual urine (PVR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and residual prostate size and safety using the incidence of complications.

RESULTS

Rezūm significantly ameliorated IPSS from the baseline score by 55.3%, QoL by 50%, Qmax by 62.5%, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) by 7.1%, PVR by 50%, residual prostate size by 28.1% and PSA by 42% at 2 years. Meanwhile, the improvement in B-TURP was significantly higher than Rezūm group, Rezūm therapy had a significantly shorter duration of operative time and hospital stay. Also, it had fewer complications in comparison with B-TURP.

CONCLUSIONS

Rezūm is a minimally invasive procedure that provides significantly improved symptomatic relief of BPH and quality of life with preservation of erectile and ejaculatory functions. However, it is not as effective as B-TURP.

Evaluation of the efficiency of transurethral enucleation with bipolar energy according to prostate volume for patients with benign prostate hyperplasia

Background

This study evaluated the efficiency and safety of transurethral enucleation with bipolar energy (TUEB) using a spatula loop according to prostate volume.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 398 patients who underwent TUEB for benign prostatic hyperplasia at a single tertiary hospital between August 2018 and December 2022. The patients were divided into three groups according to estimated prostate volume (ePV): ≤40 mL (n = 67), 40-80 mL (n = 200), and ≥80 mL (n = 131). To compare the efficiency of TUEB, perioperative parameters including TUEB and enucleation efficiencies, were calculated as enucleated tissue weight per operation time and enucleated tissue weight per enucleation time, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes such as the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QoL) score, maximum flow rate (Qmax), and post-void residual urine volume (PVR), were also compared.

Results

The IPSS total score, voiding sub-score, Qmax, and PVR improved after TUEB in all groups (all p < 0.05). The TUEB and enucleation efficiencies increased with increasing ePVs (all P < 0.001). When comparing the three prostate volume groups, there were no significant differences in functional outcomes within 12 months after TUEB (all-Bonferroni adjusted P > 0.017). A total of 57 patients experienced adverse events after TUEB, with no significant differences between the three groups (p = 0.507).

Conclusion

As prostate volume increases, the perioperative efficiency of TUEB is enhanced. Meanwhile, small prostates did not show significant differences in the improvement of functional outcomes and complications in comparison with larger prostates.

The Efficacy and Safety of HoLEP for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia With Large Volume: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with large volume. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until March 2022) were used to search related randomized controlled trials. A total of 11 studies including 1,258 patients were involved. HoLEP could significantly decrease the length of hospital stay and accelerate recovery. In subanalysis, HoLEP had better perioperative outcomes than bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (BPEP). The improvement in operative time and enucleation time was better in thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) than HoLEP. In the follow-up period, the HoLEP decreased post-void residual urine (PVR) in short-term intervals and improved patients’ maximum flow rate (Qmax) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in mid- and long-term intervals. In subanalysis, HoLEP presented significant improvements in Qmax, PSA, and quality of life (QoL) than B-TURP, and HoLEP could also improve Qmax than ThuLEP after 6 months of surgery. The HoLEP reduced the risk of postoperative bleeding compared with other surgeries in safety. In our study, we confirmed the advantages of HoLEP in treating BPH when the prostate size was larger than 80 mL, which indicated that HoLEP could be the best choice for treatment of large volume of prostate.

Can high-dose tranexamic acid have a role during transurethral resection of the prostate in large prostates? A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of high-dose tranexamic acid (TXA) during bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) in patients with large prostates compared to placebo.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2018 to May 2020, 204 patients with enlarged prostates of 80-130 g and in need of surgical intervention were randomised into two groups. Patients in Group A underwent B-TURP and received TXA as an intravenous loading dose of 50 mg/kg over 20 min before induction of anaesthesia followed by a maintenance infusion of 5 mg/kg/h until resection was completed. The patients in Group B (placebo) received a saline infusion of a similar volume.

RESULTS

There was highly significant drop in haemoglobin in the placebo group at 4- and 24-h postoperatively compared with the TXA group (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the blood transfusion rate between the two groups with five patients (5.5%) in the placebo group and four (4.2%) in the TXA group requiring a transfusion (P = 0.74). The procedural time was significantly less in the TXA group vs the control group, at a mean (SD) of 79.93 (22.18) vs 90.91 (21.4) min (P = 0.001). Also, the intraoperative irrigation fluid volume and postoperative irrigation duration were significantly less in the TXA group vs the control group, at a mean (SD) of 19.21 (3.13) vs 23.05 (3.8) L and 14.75 (5.15) vs 18.33 (5.96) h, respectively (P = 0.001). Catheterisation and hospital stay durations were comparable between both groups (P = 0.384 and P = 0.388, respectively). No complications were recorded with use of high-dose TXA.

CONCLUSION

High-dose TXA was effective in controlling blood loss during B-TURP in patients with large prostates, with no adverse drug reactions.

Bladder neck stenosis after transurethral prostate surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Bladder neck stenosis (BNS) is a long-term complication of surgical procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We performed a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of the incidence of BNS after transurethral procedures for BPH.

METHODS

We performed a systemic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. We accepted only randomized trials comparing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) vs. other transurethral surgery for BPH that were grouped in Ablation vs. Enucleation modalities. The incidences of BNS were pooled using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method with the random effect model and expressed as Risk Ratios, 95% Confidence Intervals, and p values. Study heterogeneity was assessed utilizing the I² value.

RESULTS

72 studies were identified for meta-analysis, 46 comparing TURP vs. Ablation and 26 TURP vs. Enucleation. The pooled incidence of BNS was 1.3% after TURP, 0.66% after enucleation and 1.2% after Ablation. The incidence of BNS was higher after TURP than after Enucleation but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 1.75 95% CI 0.81-3.79, p = 0.16). There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² 0%, Chi² 4.11, p = 0.90). The incidence of BNS was higher after TURP than after Ablation, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.82-2.11, p = 0.26) with no significant heterogeneity (I² 0%, Chi² 21.1, p = 0.51).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed no difference in the rate of BNS incidence among randomized trials comparing TURP vs. Ablation vs. Enucleation and can be used as a reference to counsel patients undergoing BPH surgery.

Bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral enucleation and resection versus bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection for surgically treating large (≥60 g) prostates: a propensity score-matched analysis with a 3-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

There are extremely limited published studies comparing bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of prostate (BP-TURP), bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral enucleation and resection of prostate (BP-TUERP) for enlarged prostates. Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of BP-TUERP and BP-TURP for large (≥60 g) prostates with a 3-year follow-up.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 229 patients according to inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2016. After applying propensity score matching method, preoperative results and three-year follow-up outcomes in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), urinary peek flow rate (Q<inf>max</inf>), postvoid residual urine (PVRU) volume and quality of life (QoL) score were compared.

RESULTS

Finally, within the well-balanced matched cohort, the BP-TUERP was significantly associated with longer mean operating time (OT) (P=0.039), shorter mean catheter time (CT) (P=0.001) and lower mean hemoglobin decrease (P=0.002) with more prostatic tissue removed (P=0.001) than the BP-TURP, but the median hospital stay lengths and the short- and long-term complication rates were similar between the two series. The patients in the BP-TUERP group had better long-term outcomes in IPSS, Q<inf>max</inf> and PVRU volume than these in the BP-TURP group, but not in QoL score.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with large (≥60 g) prostates, BP-TUERP and BP-TURP are safe options, but the former is a more effective choice in long-term follow-up outcomes. BP-TUERP is related to reduced CT and hemoglobin decrease with more removal of prostatic tissue at the expense of longer OT than BP-TURP.

Predictors Of Postoperative Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Improvements In Patient With Small-Volume Prostate And Bladder Outlet Obstruction

Objective

To explore the factors associated with improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with a small-volume prostate and bladder outlet obstruction (BOO).

Methods

The clinicopathologic data of 257 patients with BOO and a small-volume prostate from January 2013 to January 2018 were retrospectively collected preoperatively, 3 months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively. Patients were divided into postoperative success and failure groups based on the IPSS, IPSS-v, and IPSS-s. The relationship between each parameter and the improvement of postoperative LUTS was analyzed. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare the differences between the TURP and PKEP groups.

Results

Among patients followed up for 3 months postoperatively, multivariate analysis demonstrated that IPP, PUA, and post-PCB were significant predictors of postoperative IPSS improvement; TZI, IPP, and PUA were significant predictors of postoperative IPSS-v improvement; post-PCB and the surgical procedure were significant predictors of IPSS-s improvement; and IPP and PUA were significant predictors of postoperative Qmax improvement. Among patients followed up for 12 months postoperatively, multivariate analysis revealed that IPP, PUA, and post-PCB were significant predictors of postoperative IPSS improvement; PUA was a significant predictor of postoperative IPSS-v improvement; post-PCB was a significant predictor of IPSS-s improvement; and IPP and PUA were significant predictors of postoperative Qmax improvement. The post-PCB was significantly lower in the PKEP than the TURP group and the prostatic calculi removal rate was significantly higher in the PKEP than the TURP group.

Conclusion

Patients with a greater preoperative IPP and PUA and smaller post-PCB showed greater improvement of postoperative LUTS. PKEP might help to remove calculi from between the transitional and peripheral zones of prostate. Compared with conventional TURP, PKEP may improve the early postoperative storage symptoms of LUTS in patients with a small-volume prostate and BOO.