From BPH to male LUTS: a 20-year journey of the EAU guidelines

Prospective randomized multicenter study to evaluate holmium vs. new thulium fiber laser for prostate enucleation

BACKGROUND

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) commonly causes lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men. Holmium (HoLEP) and thulium (ThuLEP) laser enucleation are established techniques for BPH treatment. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) for prostate enucleation (ThuFLEP) shows promising outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective randomized multicenter study was conducted. Patients with BPH and LUTS unresponsive to medical therapy were enrolled. Preoperative, surgical, perioperative and postoperative data were recorded with follow-up at 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome was functional improvement, and the secondary outcome was safety in terms of complications.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were included (HoLEP 100, ThuFLEP 100). No significant baseline difference was found between groups. At 3 and 6 months we found statistically significant improvements from baseline for both HoLEP and ThuFLEP in efficacy: International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS), IPSS-Quality of Life (QoL), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), and post-void residual volume (PVR; P<0.05). At 6 months, mean±SD IPSS, IPSS-QoL, Qmax, and PVR for HoLEP vs. ThuFLEP were 5.8±4.9 vs. 4.8±5.0 points (P=0.57), 1.6±1.4 vs. 0.7±1.1 points (P=0.09), 29.9±12.5 vs. 29.6±8.0 mL/s (P=0.8), and 16.3±17.7 vs. 15.5±13.4 mL (P=0.92), respectively. No intraoperative complication was recorded. No Clavien-Dindo ≥III complications occurred during hospitalization. After 6 months, 8 (8%) and 6 (6%) patients reported mild stress urinary incontinence in HoLEP and ThuFLEP groups, respectively (P=0.24). Urethral stenosis was observed in 3 men (3%) in the HoLEP group and 1 subject (1%) in the ThuFLEP group (P=0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

HoLEP and ThuFLEP are effective and safe for BPH treatment, with comparable functional outcomes and complication rates at 6 months. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Propensity score-matched evaluation of palliative transurethral resection and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction in patients with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

While transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard-of-care, Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is widely accepted as a size-independent method for surgical treatment of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). However, in an ageing society an increasing number of patients presents with BOO due to locally advanced prostate cancer. There is currently no guidelines recommendation as to the enucleation or resection technique. Therefore, we compared intraoperative performance, postoperative outcomes, and safety for palliative (p)TURP and (p)HoLEP.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis of 1373 and 2705 men who underwent TURP or HoLEP for LUTS/BOO between 2014 and 2021, respectively. Patients were matched for age, prostate size and preoperative international prostate symptom score (IPSS). Patients were stratified by technique and groups were compared for perioperative parameters, safety, and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

While postoperative symptoms and urodynamic parameters improved irrespective of technique, we report significantly increased resection and enucleation times for palliative indication. For corresponding efficiency parameters, we observed a two-fold higher surgical performance (g/min) for both techniques in patients without prostate cancer. While adverse events were comparable between groups, we found a two-fold higher hemoglobin drop in palliative patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no standard-of-care for patients with BOO and locally advanced prostate cancer. Our data show that both TURP and HoLEP offer adequate symptom improvement and comparable safety profiles. While HoLEP is feasible even in larger prostates, both procedures become more difficult in patients with prostate cancer. Taken together, this study covers an important gap in current literature, helping urological surgeons to make evidence-based decisions for the benefit of their patients.

Impact of minimally invasive surgical procedures for Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia on ejaculatory function: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) are affected by potentially bothersome side effects on sexual, and, above all, ejaculatory function. Several minimally invasive techniques have been proposed in the last years in order to overcome these consequences. Our aim is to summarize and evaluate the efficacy on LUTS relieve and the impact on sexual/ejaculatory function of Rezum, prostate artery embolization (PAE), implantation of a prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and the temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND).

METHODS

A systematic review of the English-language literature was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases from January 2000 to October 2022, according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023466515). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies and non-comparative or comparative studies assessing the impact on functional and ejaculatory function after minimally invasive surgical therapies for Male LUTS were evaluated. Risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for comparative studies, and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) for RCTs.

RESULTS

Overall, 47 studies were included (n = 4 for TIND; n = 9 for Rezum; n = 13 for PUL; n = 21 for PAE). Most studies relied on prospective patient cohorts and were rated as low risk of bias. Across studies assessing the efficacy of Rezum, a significant improvement in terms of IPSS (ranging from -47% to -56%) and Qmax (ranging from +39% to +87%) was reported. On the other hand, according to IIEF-5 score, Rezum had a minimal impact on sexual function (ranging from -1% to -3%). PUL showed a positive impact on IPSS (ranging from -35% to -58.2%) and Qmax (ranging from +49.9% to +114.7%) and sexual function. Finally, PAE showed encouraging functional results with IPSS score reducing from -12.8% to 63.3% and Qmax improving from +8% to 114.9% but the available evidence regarding the potential impact of PAE on sexual outcomes were limited.

CONCLUSION

Rezum, PAE, PUL and TIND are safe and feasible techniques associated with a significant functional improvement. While available data suggest a minimal impact of Rezum and PUL on ejaculatory function, the evidence after PAE and TIND are still limited. Therefore, our review lays the foundation for further research aiming to identify the criteria to select best candidates for uMIST to tailor the management in light of specific patient- and disease- factors.

Emerging Technologies for the Surgical Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Obstruction. A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)/benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) aims at ablating prostate adenoma by resection, enucleation, or vaporisation. Apart from established ablation modes according to the European Association of Urology guidelines, various technologies have emerged as safe/effective alternatives but remain under investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To explore short-term benefits/harms of emerging technologies for surgical management of LUTS/BPO.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL via Ovid up to June 18, 2022. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exploring aquablation, prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), Rezum, prostatic urethral lift (PUL), and temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND) versus sham/transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included ten RCTs (1108 men). Aquablation versus TURP: insignificant change in International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS; mean difference [MD] 0.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.44 to 2.44), quality of life (QoL; MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.21), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax; MD -0.30, 95% CI -3.71 to 3.11), retreatment (risk ratio [RR] 0.18, 95% CI 0.02-1.66), and urinary incontinence (UI; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26-1.95). PAE versus monopolar TURP (M-TURP): insignificant change in IPSS (MD 3.33, 95% CI -28.39 to 35.05), QoL (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.54), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5; MD 3.07, 95% CI -1.78 to 7.92), and UI (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01-2.86), and significant change in Qmax (MD -9.52, 95% CI -14.04 to -5.0), favouring M-TURP. PAE versus bipolar TURP: insignificant change in IPSS (MD -2.80, 95% CI -6.61 to 1.01), QoL (MD -0.69, 95% CI -1.46 to 0.08), Qmax (MD -3.51, 95% CI -8.08 to 1.06), UI (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-2.51), and retreatment (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.19-19.63). PUL versus TURP: insignificant change in QoL (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.29 to 1.09), UI (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-1.05), and retreatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12-1.86), and significant change in IPSS (MD 3.40, 95% CI 0.22-6.58), and IIEF-5 (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.41-5.59) and Qmax (MD -9.60, 95% CI -13.44 to -5.76), favouring PUL and TURP, respectively. Rezum and iTIND have not been evaluated in RCTs against TURP to date.

CONCLUSIONS

Supporting evidence for clinical use of aquablation, PAE, PUL, Rezum, and iTIND is very limited. Benefits/harms should be investigated further in high-quality RCTs.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This review summarises the evidence for the clinical use of aquablation, prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), Rezum, and temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND) to manage lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. The supporting evidence for the clinical usage of aquablation, PAE, PUL, Rezum, and iTIND is very limited. Benefits and harms should be investigated further in high-quality randomised controlled trials.