Comparison of Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Prospective Nonrandomized Bicenter Trial with 2-Year Follow-Up

A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety comparing greenlight laser vaporization with transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia with prostate volume less than 80 ml

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photo selective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) with the GreenLight Laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of small-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). As of July 2022, relevant literature in online databases such as Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase was searched, including studies published on or before that date, and there were 9 studies in total, including 5 RCTs and 4 non-RCTs. In total 1525 patients were included to compare the efficacy of PVP and TURP in treating BPH. The Cochrane Collaboration criteria were used to evaluate the risk of bias. The software was used for random effect meta-analysis with RevMan 5.3. Data extraction included: clinical baseline characteristics, perioperative parameters, complication rates, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), prostate specific antigen (PSA), post-void residual urine (PVR), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and quality of life (QoL). The pooled analysis showed that PVP was associated with reduced blood loss, blood transfusion, clot retention, catheterization time, definitive catheter removal, and hospital stay, but was associated with longer operative time and more severe dysuria (all p < 0.05). The results of this meta-analysis show that PVP as a technique for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with a volume of less than 80 cc has similar efficacy to standard TURP in IPSS, PSA, PVR, Qmax and QoL, and is an effective alternative. It outperformed TURP in terms of blood transfusion, catheterization time and hospital stay, while TURP is superior to PVP in terms of operation time.

Symptomatic Improvement of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 4 Different Minimally Invasive Therapies

PURPOSE

To review and compare the outcomes of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with 3 other minimally invasive surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia, including photoselective vaporization (PVP), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), and water vapor thermal therapy (WV).

METHODS

A literature review was used to identify 35 publications, which included 2,653 patients (studies, patients): PVP (13, 949), PUL (9, 577), WV (3, 330), and PAE (10, 728). The international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and the international index of erectile function (IIEF-5) and quality of life (QOL) scores were recorded at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Meta-analyses, pooling the standardized mean difference between scores recorded before and after treatment, were conducted for each modality and time point to assess the magnitude of a therapy's effect to yield pooled effect sizes. A negative score indicates IPSS and QOL improvement. A positive score indicates IIEF-5 improvement.

RESULTS

At 6 and 12 months, the IPSS and QOL were most improved after PVP, followed by that after PAE, PUL, and, lastly, WV (measured only at 12 months). Between 6 and 12 months, the IPSS and QOL improved with PAE and worsened with PVP and PUL. Only PAE demonstrated statistical improvement in the IIEF-5, which improved from 6 to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

PVP and PAE resulted in the largest improvements in the IPSS and QOL. Only PAE resulted in improvement of the IIEF-5.

GreenLight Laser™ Photovaporization versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

GreenLight laser™ photovaporization of the prostate (GLL-PVP) has become a valid alternative to traditional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in men requiring surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. We aimed to review systematically the safety and efficacy of studies comparing GLL PVP and TURP in the medium-term. A comprehensive literature search was performed. Twelve studies were identified for meta-analysis. Meta-analyses showed a longer postoperative catheterization time (risk ratio (RR): 1.12, 95% CI:1.09–1.14, p<0.00001) and length of stay (RR: 1.16, 95% CI:1.12–1.19, p<0.00001) in the TURP group; higher risk of transfusion in the TURP group (RR: 6.51, 95% CI: 2,90–14,64 p<0.00001); no difference in the risk of urinary tract infections (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.58–1.18, p=0.30) and transient re-catheterization (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.76–1.60, p=0.60). Regarding reoperation rate, no difference was found in term of postoperative urethral stricture (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.73–1.75, p=0.59) and bladder neck contracture (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.31–1.40, p=0.28). A significantly higher incidence in reoperation for persistent/regrowth adenoma was present in the GLLL-PVP (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.41–0.99, p=0.05). Data at 2-year follow-up showed significant better post-voiding residual (PVR) (MD: -1.42, 95% CI: -2.01, -0.82, p<0.00001) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (MD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.50, -0.20, p<0.00001) after TURP. No difference was found in the mean PVR at 2 years after TURP, in the mean maximum flow rate (Qmax) (MD: 0.30, 95% CI: -0.02–0.61, p=0.06) and quality of life QoL score (MD: 0.05, 95% CI: -0.02–0.42, p=0.13). At 5-year follow-up, data showed better IPSS (MD: -1.70, 95% CI: -2.45,-0.95, p<0.00001), QoL scores (MD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.69, -0.02, p=0.04) and Qmax (MD: 3.29, 95% CI: 0.19–6.38, p=0.04) after TURP. Data of PVR showed no significant difference (MD: -11.54, 95% CI: -29.55–6.46, p=0.21). In conclusion, our analysis shows that GLL-PVP is a safer and more efficacious procedure than standard TURP in the early and medium-term. However, in the long term period GLL-PVP showed a higher incidence of reoperation rate due to incomplete vaporization/regrowth of prostatic adenoma.

[Anastomosis stenosis after radical prostatectomy and bladder neck stenosis after benign prostate hyperplasia treatment: reconstructive options]

Bladder neck stenosis (BNS) after simple prostatectomy and vesicourethral anastomosis stenosis (VUAS) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer are common sequelae. However, the two entities differ in their pathology, anatomy and their surgical results. VUAS has an incidence of 0.2-28%. Commonly, VUAS occurs within the first 2 years after surgery. Initial therapy should be performed endourologically: dilatation, (laser) incision or resection. After three unsuccessful treatment attempts, open reconstruction should be considered. Different surgical approaches (abdominal, perineal, abdominoperineal) have been described. All are associated with good success rates. However, they are accompanied by high rates of urinary incontinence. Incontinence can be treated safely by implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter. The incidence of BNS is around 5% for all types of surgery for benign prostate hyperplasia. It occurs within the first 2 years after surgery. Initial treatment should be performed endourologically. In case of recalcitrant BNS, open reconstruction is indicated. The YV-plasty is an established procedure, and the T‑plasty represents a modification. Success rates of both procedures are high. Robot-assisted reconstructive procedures have been described for both VUAS and BNS.

Comparison of photoselective green light laser vaporisation versus traditional transurethral resection for benign prostate hyperplasia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and prospective studies

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of green-light laser photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library until October 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and prospective studies comparing the safety and efficacy of PVP versus TURP for LUTS manifesting through BPH.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Perioperative parameters, complications rates and functional outcomes including treatment-related adverse events such as International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR), quality of life (QoL) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

RESULTS

22 publications consisting of 2665 patients were analysed. Pooled analysis revealed PVP is associated with reduced blood loss, transfusion, clot retention, TUR syndrome, capsular perforation, catheterisation time and hospitalisation, but also with a higher reintervention rate and longer intervention duration (all p<0.05). No significant difference in IPSS, Qmax, QoL, PVR or IIEF at 3, 24, 36 or 60 months was identified. There was a significant difference in QoL at 6 months (MD=-0.08; 95% CI -0.13 to -0.02; p=0.007), and IPSS (MD = -0.10; 95% CI -0.15 to -0.05; p<0.0001) and Qmax (MD=0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.19; p=0.03) at 12 months, although these differences were not clinically relevant.

CONCLUSION

PVP is an effective alternative, holding additional safety benefits. PVP has equivalent long-term IPSS, Qmax, QoL, PVR, IIEF efficacy and fewer complications. The main drawbacks are dysuria and reintervention, although both can be managed with non-invasive techniques. The additional shortcoming is that PVP does not acquire histological tissue examination which removes an opportunity to identify prostate cancer.

Comparison of vaporization using 120-W GreenLight laser versus 2-micrometer continuous laser for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia: A 24-month follow-up study of a single center

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of photoselective vaporization of prostate using 120-W HPS GreenLight KTP laser and compare the results with those obtained with 2-micrometer continuous-wave (2 um CW) laser for treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One group of 216 patients diagnosed with BPH underwent 120-W KTP laser vaporization of the prostate, while another group of 198 BPH patients underwent 2 um CW laser vaporization. The relevant pre-, peri-, and post-operative parameters were compared between the two therapy groups. Functional results in terms of improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and post-void residual (PVR) urine were assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

BPH was successfully treated with 120-W HPS KTP laser and 2 um CW laser in all patients. There were no significant difference between two patient groups in the baseline characteristics (such as PSA, IPSS, QoL, and Qmax). No major complications occurred intraoperatively (capsule perforation and TUR syndrome) or postoperatively (electric unbalance), and no blood transfusions were required in both groups. Average catheterization time was 1.9±1.3 days for the 120-W PVP and 2.2±1.9 days for the 2 um CW laser treatment. In addition, the hospitalization times were 3.8±1.2days (120-W PVP) and 4.8±1.5 days (2 um CW laser), respectively. The incidence of dysuria and urge incontinence was higher in the 2 um CW laser group (35/198, 24/198) than in the 120 W PVP group (15/216, 10/216). Dramatic improvement was observed in Qmax, IPSS, Qol, and PVR as compared with the respective pre-operative values. The degree of improvement during the follow-up period was comparable in both groups. No significant differences were observed in terms of re-operation rates, bladder neck stricture, and urethral stricture.

CONCLUSIONS

Both 120-W HPS laser and 2 um CW laser vaporization present effective treatment options in patients with BPH, but 120-W PVP provides safer therapy with less post-operative complications within the 2-year follow-up period.

Analysis of risk factors leading to postoperative urethral stricture and bladder neck contracture following transurethral resection of prostate

Purpose:

To determine risk factors of postoperative urethral stricture (US) and vesical neck contracture (BNC) after transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) from perioperative parameters.

Materials and Methods:

373 patients underwent TURP in a Chinese center for lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO), with their perioperative and follow-up clinical data being collected. Univariate analyses were used to determine variables which had correlation with the incidence of US and BNC before logistic regression being applied to find out independent risk factors.

Results:

The median follow-up was 29.3 months with the incidence of US and BNC being 7.8% and 5.4% respectively. Resection speed, reduction in hemoglobin (ΔHb) and hematocrit (ΔHCT) levels, incidence of urethral mucosa rupture, re-catheterization and continuous infection had significant correlation with US, while PSA level, storage score, total prostate volume (TPV), transitional zone volume (TZV), transitional zone index (TZI), resection time and resected gland weight had significant correlation with BNC. Lower resection speed (OR=0.48), urethral mucosa rupture (OR=2.44) and continuous infection (OR=1.49) as well as higher storage score (OR=2.51) and lower TPV (OR=0.15) were found to be the independent risk factors of US and BNC respectively.

Conclusions:

Lower resection speed, intraoperative urethral mucosa rupture and postoperative continuous infection were associated with a higher risk of US while severer storage phase symptom and smaller prostate size were associated with a higher risk of BNC after TURP.

Greenlight high-performance system (HPS) 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of the published results of randomized controlled trials

To assess the efficacy and the safety of Greenlight(TM) high-performance system (HPS) 120-W laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The related original studies only including randomized controlled trials were searched by databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. The databases were updated till July 2014. The risk ratio, mean difference, and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Risk of bias of the enrolled trials were assessed according to Cochrane Handbook. A total of four trials involving 559 patients were enrolled. Statistical analysis was performed by software Review Manager (V5.3.3). There was no significant difference in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and maximum flow rate (Qmax) between PVP and TURP at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Patients in the PVP group were associated with significantly lower risk of capsule perforation (risk ratio (RR) = 0.06, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 0.01 to 0.46; p = 0.007), significantly lower transfusion requirements (RR = 0.12, 95%CI = 0.03 to 0.43; p = 0.001), a shorter catheterization time (mean difference (MD) = -41.93, 95%CI = -54.87 to -28.99; p < 0.00001), and a shorter duration of hospital stay (MD = -2.09, 95%CI = -2.58 to -1.59; p < 0.00001) than that in the TURP group. In the TURP group, the patients were associated with a lower risk of re-operation (RR = 3.68, 95%CI = 1.04 to 13.00; p = 0.04) and a shorter operative time (MD = 9.28, 95%CI = 2.80 to 15.75; p = 0.005) than those in the PVP group. In addition, no statistically significant differences were detected between groups in terms of the rates of transurethral resection syndrome, urethral stricture, bladder neck contracture, incontinence, and infection. Greenlight(TM) 120-W laser PVP is as effective as TURP for symptom reduction and improvement of the quality of life. Laser PVP shows advantages over TURP in terms of intraoperative safety, whereas TURP is found to have a shorter operative time and lower re-operative risk.

The role of lasers in modern urology

INTRODUCTION

The functioning of modern urological departments and the high level of service they provide is possible through, among other things, the use of modern laser techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Open operations have been replaced by minimally invasive procedures, and classical surgical tools by advanced lasers. The search for new applications with lasers began as technology developed. Among many devices available, holmium, diode and thulium lasers are currently the most popular.

RESULTS

Depending on the wavelength, the absorption by water and hemoglobin and the depth of penetration, lasers can be used for coagulation, vaporization and enucleation. In many centres, after all the possibilities of pharmacological treatment have been exhausted, lasers are used as the primary treatment for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia, with therapeutic results that are better than those obtained through open or endoscopic operations. The use of lasers in the treatment of urolithiasis, urinary strictures and bladder tumours has made treatment of older patients with multiple comorbidities safe, without further necessity to modify the anticoagulant drug treatment. Laser procedures are additionally less invasive, reduce hospitalization time and enable a shorter bladder catheterization time, sometimes even eliminating the need for bladder catherterization completely. Such procedures are also characterized by more stable outcomes and a lower number of reoperations.

CONCLUSIONS

There are also indications that with the increased competition among laser manufacturers, decreased purchase and maintenance costs, and increased operational safety, laser equipment will become mandatory and indispensable asset in all urology wards.

Durability and complications of photoselective vaporisation of the prostate with the 120W high performance system GreenLight™ lithium triborate laser

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to examine the durability of photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) with the 120W GreenLight HPS(®) laser (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, US), and to examine the incidence, nature and factors associated with complications from the procedure.

METHODS

Clinical records of PVP patients were reviewed to compare details between patients who developed complications and those who did not. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess durability. Cox regression was used to examine associations between complications and perioperative factors.

RESULTS

Successful outcomes were maintained in 84% of 117 patients at the 2-year follow-up appointment. Complication rates were low and comparable with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Complications were developed by 18 patients (15.4%) over a mean follow-up duration of 20.8 months. The most common complications were residual prostate requiring another surgery (5/117, 4.3%) and urethral stricture (4/117, 3.4%). Patients with complications had significantly longer catheterisation duration. Length of hospital stay, lasing energy, pre and postoperative levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA), pre and postoperative maximum flow rate (Qmax), and age at surgery were not found to influence development of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from PVP with an HPS(®) laser are durable. Complications are low and compare favourably with TURP. Lasing energy, PSA, Qmax, patient age and length of stay are not associated with development of complications. However, a longer postoperative catheterisation after PVP is associated with development of complications.

[Up-to-date on the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Which adenoma to treat and how to do it?]

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is a state of the nature rather than a disease. It affects mainly men over 50 years and represents a public health problem. A literature review on the therapeutic management of benign prostatic hyperplasia was carried out from a selection of publications with the highest level of evidence. Medical treatment is based on herbal medicine, alpha-blockers and 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors. Surgical treatment is used in case of complications or failure of medical management. Surgical options are numerous. Transurethral prostate resection and prostate adenomectomy are the most usual procedures. Due to their significant morbidity, other less invasive procedures have recently been developed. The choice of treatment will depend on prostate volume and anatomy and patient's comorbidities.

Risk factors for delayed hematuria following photoselective vaporization of the prostate

PURPOSE

Photoselective vaporization of the prostate has become an increasingly popular option for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, delayed bleeding has been raised as a potential issue as more cases are performed. We characterize delayed bleeding after photoselective vaporization of the prostate and identify associated risk factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We defined delayed gross hematuria as any complaint of hematuria following hospital discharge, and further stratified it as delayed gross hematuria requiring emergency department evaluation, hospital admission, continuous bladder irrigation, transfusions or reoperation. We performed an explicit chart review of 290 patients who underwent photoselective vaporization of the prostate at a single center from 2002 through 2009. Exposures of interest included age, prostate volume, followup duration, operative factors (watts/joules), and use of oral anticoagulation therapy or 5α-reductase inhibitors.

RESULTS

Delayed gross hematuria occurred in 33.8% of patients during an average followup of 33 months. For 8.5% of patients the bleeding was severe enough to prompt presentation to the emergency department. For 4.8% of patients hospitalization was required and for 4.5% reoperation was required. Multivariate analysis revealed that the odds of bleeding increased with prostate size (OR 1.08, 1.03-1.14), longer followup (OR 1.35, 1.12-1.62) and anticoagulant use (OR 3.35, 1.43-7.83), and decreased with increasing age (OR 0.71, 0.51-0.98) and use of a 5α-reductase inhibitor (OR 0.41, 0.24-0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed hematuria occurs commonly after photoselective vaporization of the prostate but severe hematuria is rare. Larger prostate size, longer followup and use of anticoagulation were associated with a higher risk of delayed gross hematuria while preoperative 5α-reductase inhibitor use and older age were protective.

Comparison of techniques for transurethral laser prostatectomy: standard photoselective vaporization of the prostate versus transurethral laser enucleation of the prostate

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Transurethral laser enucleation of the prostate (TLEP) using the potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser offers an alternative technique to traditional photovaporization. The study objective was to determine the comparative efficacy between transurethral photovaporization of the prostate (PVP) with a TLEP technique using the 80W 532 nm KTP laser.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A series of 97 vs 170 patients who underwent PVP vs TLEP, respectively, with the KTP laser system at Weill Cornell Medical College from September 2001 to May 2009 was studied retrospectively. Outcome measures included laser time, prostate volume lased per unit time, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), postvoid residual (PVR), and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Statistical analyses were performed using the Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and unpaired t tests.

RESULTS

Baseline parameters were similar between groups, although volume was greater in the TLEP group (83 vs 63 cc, P=0.04). Median laser time was longer in the TLEP group (90 vs 50 min, P<0.001) with a higher median energy used (308 vs 165 kJ, P<0.001). The volume lased per unit time was shorter, however, for TLEP (0.92 cc/min) than for PVP (1.26 cc/min). A greater median number of fibers were used in TLEP (2.5 vs 2.0, P=0.001). Improvements in median IPSS and PVR were seen in the TLEP group (5.0, P<0.001; 55.5, P=0.02, respectively) but not in the PVP group (P=0.40 and 0.30). Median Qmax and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level improved similarly in both groups. Final IPSS was lower for the TLEP group (P<0.001), but other final parameters were statistically equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, both PVP and TLEP techniques were safe and effective. Although changes in Qmax and PSA were similar between the two techniques, improvement in urinary symptoms and PVR was superior with the TLEP technique. The TLEP technique was a more efficient method for laser prostatectomy.

Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to uncomplicated benign prostatic hyperplasia in Italy: updated summary from AURO.it

BACKGROUND

The first Italian national guidelines were developed by the Italian Association of Urologists and published in 2007. Since then, a number of new drugs or classes of drugs have emerged for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), new data have emerged on medical therapy (monotherapies and combination therapies), new surgical techniques have come into practice, and our understanding of disease pathogenesis has increased. Consequently, a new update of the guidelines has become necessary.

METHODS

A structured literature review was conducted to identify relevant papers published between 1 August 2006 and 12 December 2010. Publications before or after this timeframe were considered only if they were recognised as important milestones in the field or if the literature search did not identify publications within this timeframe. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

MAIN FINDINGS

Decisions on therapeutic intervention should be based on the impact of symptoms on quality of life (QoL) rather than the severity of symptoms (International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) score). A threshold for intervention was therefore based on the IPSS Q8, with intervention recommended for patients with a score of at least 4. Several differences in clinical recommendations have emerged. For example, combination therapy with a 5α-reductase inhibitor plus α blocker is now the recommended option for the treatment of patients at risk of BPH progression. Other differences include the warning of potential worsening of cognitive disturbances with use of anticholinergics in older patients, the distinction between Serenoa repens preparations (according to the method of extraction), and the clearly defined threshold of prostate size for performing open surgery (>80 g). While the recommendations included in these guidelines are evidence based, clinical decisions should also be informed by patients' clinical and physical circumstances, as well as patients' preferences and actions.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are intended to assist physicians and patients in the decision-making process regarding the management of LUTS/BPH, and support the process of continuous improvement of the quality of care and services to patients.

[European Association of Urology guidelines on laser technologies]

CONTEXT

The European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office has set up a guideline working panel to analyse the scientific evidence published in the world literature on lasers in urologic practice.

OBJECTIVE

Review the physical background and physiologic and technical aspects of the use of lasers in urology, as well as current clinical results from these new and evolving technologies, together with recommendations for the application of lasers in urology. The primary objective of this structured presentation of the current evidence base in this area is to assist clinicians in making informed choices regarding the use of lasers in their practice.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Structured literature searches using an expert consultant were designed for each section of this document. Searches were carried out in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Medline and Embase on the Dialog/DataStar platform. The controlled terminology of the respective databases was used, and both Medical Subject Headings and EMTREE were analysed for relevant entry terms. One Cochrane review was identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Depending on the date of publication, the evidence for different laser treatments is heterogeneous. The available evidence allows treatments to be classified as safe alternatives for the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction in different clinical scenarios, such as refractory urinary retention, anticoagulation, and antiplatelet medication. Laser treatment for bladder cancer should only be used in a clinical trial setting or for patients who are not suitable for conventional treatment due to comorbidities or other complications. For the treatment of urinary stones and retrograde endoureterotomy, lasers provide a standard tool to augment the endourologic procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

In benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), laser vaporisation, resection, or enucleation are alternative treatment options. The standard treatment for BPO remains transurethral resection of the prostate for small to moderate size prostates and open prostatectomy for large prostates. Laser energy is an optimal treatment method for disintegrating urinary stones. The use of lasers to treat bladder tumours and in laparoscopy remains investigational.

Photoselective vaporization with the green light laser vs transurethral resection of the prostate for treating benign prostate hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the overall efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) vs transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for treating patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, as well as manual bibliography searches were performed. The pooled estimates of maximum flow rate (Q(max)), postvoid residual (PVR), quality of life (QoL), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), operation duration, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay, capsule perforation, transfusion, transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome, urethral stricture and reintervention were calculated.

RESULTS

At the 3-month follow-up, there was no significant difference in Q(max), PVR, QoL and IPSS between the TURP and PVP groups. At the 6-month follow-up, the pooled QoL favoured TURP, but there was no significant difference in the other variables between the two groups. PVP was associated with less blood loss, transfusion, capsular perforation, TUR syndrome, shorter catheterization time and hospital stay, but longer operation duration and higher reintervention rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of PVP was similar to that of TURP in relation to Q(max), PVR, QoL and IPSS, and it offered several advantages over TURP. As a promising minimal invasive technique, PVP could be used as an alternative surgical procedure for treating BPH.

The application of 120-W high-performance system GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate in high-risk patients

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 120-W potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser vaporization in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who also had cardiopulmonary diseases who were taking long-term anticoagulants and were at high risk of bleeding complications. The prospective study included 188 patients with severe lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent 120-W KTP laser vaporization of the prostate. All patients were at high cardiopulmonary risk, having presented with an American Society of Anesthesiology score of 3 or greater. Of those, 45 patients were taking oral anticoagulants, and 1 had a severe bleeding disorder. BPH was successfully treated with 120-W KTP laser vaporization in all patients. Mean preoperative prostate volume ± SD was 66 ± 23.1 ml, and mean operative time was 50.8 ± 15.5 min. There were no major complications intraoperatively or postoperatively, and no blood transfusions were required. Postoperatively, only 14 patients (7.4 %) required bladder irrigation. Average catheterization time was 1.9 ± 1.5 days (range, 1-5 days). Three patients required reoperation due to enlarged prostates from residual adenoma. At 3-, 6,- 12-, and 24-month follow-ups, mean urinary peak flow increased from 8.0 ± 3.6 ml/s to 19.1 ± 5.6, 19.2 ± 4.7, 19.1 ± 4.65, and 19.2 ± 4.34 ml/s, respectively. Mean International Prostate Symptom Scores decreased over time, from 25.6 ± 5.1 (3 months) to 9.4 ± 2.8, 7.05 ± 1.46, 6.24 ± 1.36, and 6.20 ± 1.32 (24 months), respectively. 120-W HPS KTP laser vaporization is a safe and effective treatment option in BPH patients at high risk and those on anticoagulation therapy who have severe LUTS secondary to BPH.

Photoselective green-light laser vaporisation vs. TURP for BPH: meta-analysis

This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporisation (PVP) vs. transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE). The database search, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Efficacy (primary outcomes: maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), postvoid residual urine (PVR) and quality of life (QoL); secondary outcomes: operative time, hospital time and catheter removal time) and safety (complications, such as transfusion and capsular perforation) were explored by using Review Manager 5.0. Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case-controlled studies of 1398 patients met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of the extractable data showed that there were no differences in IPSS, Q(max), QoL or PVR between PVP and TURP (mean difference (MD): prostate sizes <70 ml, Q(max) at 24 months, MD=0.01, P=0.97; IPSS at 12 months, MD=0.18, P=0.64; QoL at 12 months, MD=-0.00, P=0.96; PVR at 12 months, MD=0.52, P=0.43; prostate sizes >70 ml, Q(max) at 6 months, MD=-3.46, P=0.33; IPSS at 6 months, MD=3.11, P=0.36; PVR at 6 months, MD=25.50, P=0.39). PVP was associated with a shorter hospital time and catheter removal time than TURP, whereas PVP resulted in a longer operative time than TURP. For prostate sizes <70 ml, there were fewer transfusions, capsular perforations, incidences of TUR syndrome and clot retentions following PVP compared with TURP. These results indicate that PVP is as effective and safe as TURP for BPH at the mid-term patient follow-up, in particular for prostate sizes <70 ml. Due to the different energy settings available for green-light laser sources and the higher efficiency and performance of higher-quality lasers, large-sample, long-term RCTs are required to verify whether different energy settings affect outcomes.

EAU guidelines on laser technologies

CONTEXT

The European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office has set up a guideline working panel to analyse the scientific evidence published in the world literature on lasers in urologic practice.

OBJECTIVE

Review the physical background and physiologic and technical aspects of the use of lasers in urology, as well as current clinical results from these new and evolving technologies, together with recommendations for the application of lasers in urology. The primary objective of this structured presentation of the current evidence base in this area is to assist clinicians in making informed choices regarding the use of lasers in their practice.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Structured literature searches using an expert consultant were designed for each section of this document. Searches were carried out in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Medline and Embase on the Dialog/DataStar platform. The controlled terminology of the respective databases was used, and both Medical Subject Headings and EMTREE were analysed for relevant entry terms. One Cochrane review was identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Depending on the date of publication, the evidence for different laser treatments is heterogeneous. The available evidence allows treatments to be classified as safe alternatives for the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction in different clinical scenarios, such as refractory urinary retention, anticoagulation, and antiplatelet medication. Laser treatment for bladder cancer should only be used in a clinical trial setting or for patients who are not suitable for conventional treatment due to comorbidities or other complications. For the treatment of urinary stones and retrograde endoureterotomy, lasers provide a standard tool to augment the endourologic procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

In benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), laser vaporisation, resection, or enucleation are alternative treatment options. The standard treatment for BPO remains transurethral resection of the prostate for small to moderate size prostates and open prostatectomy for large prostates. Laser energy is an optimal treatment method for disintegrating urinary stones. The use of lasers to treat bladder tumours and in laparoscopy remains investigational.

Photoselective GreenLight™ laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate in Greece: a comparative cost analysis

PURPOSE

To compare photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) using the 120W GreenLight™ laser with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in terms of their cost to the Greek National Health Service (NHS) or to the Public Insurance Sickness Funds (PISF).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cost evaluation with 1-year follow-up of 60 patients with infravesical obstruction of benign prostatic hyperplasia origin who underwent o either TURP (n=30) or PVP (n=30). The cost of equipment, consumables, anesthesia, drugs, inpatient hospitalization, and complication management within 1 year postoperatively were used to calculate the cost for the NHS. PISF reimbursements to hospitals and PISF opportunity cost from the lost days of work were used to calculate PISF perspective.

RESULTS

From the NHS perspective, the average cost was €1722 ($2371) for PVP and €2132 ($2935) for TURP. From the PISF perspective, the average cost for hospital reimbursement was €1348 ($1856) in the case of PVP and €938 ($1291) in the case of TURP. Nevertheless, in the case of patients still working, total PISF reimbursement cost was €2038 ($2806) for PVP and €2666 ($3671) for TURP.

CONCLUSIONS

PVP for 40 to 70 cc prostates is preferable from the perspective of the NHS. From the perspective of PISF, PVP is less costly only in the case of patients who are still working, because patients who undergo PVP stay much less out of work. Further investigation in larger populations as well as in different protocols of PVP hospitalization and return to work times is deemed necessary to reinforce the conclusions of this study.

GreenLight™ laser in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement

For more than a decade, laser technology has facilitated a minimally invasive surgical method to treat patients with bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia. This article critically assesses the features of the GreenLight™ laser and its potential use in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients. Recently, a significant body of evidence in the literature on good clinical outcomes in 1-year follow-up periods has been enriched with the findings from a few randomized trials, in which this device is compared with other minimally invasive or standard approaches. In turn, very few patients in the GreenLight laser study groups reach the end point of a 3- or 5-year follow-up time. However, most patients who underwent GreenLight laser treatment were treated successfully with a good clinical outcome and a minor rate of peri- and post-operative complications. Furthermore, it can be implemented in high-risk patients who are undergoing anticoagulation therapy. Bearing in mind the inherent characteristics of using a laser for treatment, one obvious consequence is that no pathological specimen remains for further study. This implies the necessity of suitable patient selection in whom the risk of prostate cancer should be minimal. In terms of cost-effectiveness, one should consider applying this method when dealing with patients who have a moderately enlarged prostate volume.

Current laser treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia

The latest technical improvements in the surgical armamentarium are remarkable. In particular, advancements in the urologic field are so exceptional that we could observe the flare-up of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and laser prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) and holmium laser prostatectomy are the most generalized options for laser surgery of BPH, and both modalities have shown good postoperative results. In comparison to transurethral prostatectomy (TURP), they showed similar efficacy and a much lower complication rate in randomized prospective clinical trials. Even in cases of large prostates, laser prostatectomy showed comparable efficacy and safety profiles compared to open prostatectomy. From a technical point of view, PVP is considered to be an easier technique for the urologist to master. Furthermore, patients can be safely followed up in an outpatient clinic. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) mimics open prostatectomy because the adenomatous tissue is peeled off the surgical capsule in both procedures. Therefore, HoLEP shows notable volume reduction of the prostate similar to open prostatectomy with fewer blood transfusions, shorter hospital stay, and cost reduction regardless of prostate size. Outcomes of laser prostatectomy for BPH are encouraging but sometimes are unbalanced because safety and feasibility studies were reported mainly for PVP, whereas long-term data are mostly available for HoLEP. We need longer-term randomized clinical data to identify the reoperation rate of PVP and to determine which procedure is the ideal alternative to TURP and open prostatectomy for each patient.

The role of PCA3 testing in patients with a raised prostate-specific antigen level after Greenlight photoselective vaporization of the prostate

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Greenlight(®) photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) is an effective method for treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms. A rise in prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, however, may be noticed in some patients during follow-up. The aim of this study was to determine whether the prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) urinary test would help identify patients who were in need of a prostate biopsy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The PSA of all patients undergoing PVP were analyzed. Patients with an elevated (above reference range) or rising PSA level (defined as > 0.75 ng/mL/year if the PSA was between 4.1 and 10 or a doubling time of less than 2 years) were offered a transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. Before the biopsy procedure, all patients had a PCA3 test. The relationships between PSA, PCA3, and TRUS prostate biopsy findings were analyzed to determine sensitivity and specificity for the PCA3 test in this setting.

RESULTS

50 patients were identified. The mean age was 69.97 (range 57-83) years. The mean PSA level was 10.1 ng/mL (range 3.03-44.2 ng/mL). Six patients were found to have prostate cancer. Of those, five patients had a positive PCA3 test. One patient had a negative PCA3 test but positive biopsy findings. This gives a sensitivity of 83.3%, and a positive predictive value of 21.7%. The negative predictive value was 96%.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that a negative PCA3 test in our group of patients is a good predictor of negative biopsy results. The low positive predictive value may be an artefact of the group size. This will need further investigation and greater patient numbers to determine.

Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement

CONTEXT

There is a continuous decline in the number of transurethral resections of the prostate (TURP) and an increase use of minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Current results from randomised controlled trials (RCT) and methodologically sound prospective studies suggest that some of the proposed procedures have the potential to replace TURP.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the contemporary status of TURP and of the currently most commonly applied transurethral MISTs: (1) bipolar TURP, (2) bipolar transurethral vaporisation of the prostate (bipolar TUVP), (3) holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), and (4) potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser vaporisation of the prostate.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This meta-analysis was based on a systematic Medline search assessing the period 1997-2009. All RCTs comparing TURP and the most commonly discussed ablative treatments were included. The end points of our analyses were functional outcomes and treatment-related adverse events.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-seven publications involving 23 different RCTs with a total of 2245 patients provided the highest level of evidence available (level 1b) and were fully assessed. Meta-analysis was conducted with SAS v.9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Forest plots were produced using the R software. Pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated between various operative techniques versus TURP. Functional results between the specific transurethral procedures versus TURP were summarised as differences in means.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates statistically comparable efficacy and overall morbidity for MISTs versus contemporary TURP. Type, category (minor vs major), and the number of complications (safety profile) vary specifically for each of the different transurethral techniques. We feel that the individual patient's clinical profile should be carefully assessed to identify the most appropriate transurethral technique.

Photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy versus transurethral prostate resection: a cost analysis

PURPOSE

Laser procedures to treat symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia are becoming more common despite concern for potentially increasing cost burdens often associated with new technologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Actual costs associated with photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy and transurethral prostate resection were measured using the EPSi and TSI (Eclipsys) hospital cost accounting systems at 2 large tertiary referral centers for the first 12 months that GreenLight HPS was performed. Only patients who presented for photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy or transurethral prostate resection as the principal treatment during the hospital visit were included in study.

RESULTS

A total of 250 men underwent transurethral prostate resection and 220 underwent photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy, including 194 (78%) and 209 (95%), respectively, treated on an outpatient basis with less than 23 hours of hospitalization. Overall costs of laser vaporization were lower than those of transurethral prostate resection ($4,266 +/- $1,182 vs $5,097 +/- $5,003, p = 0.01). Average inpatient length of stay was also longer in the resection group.

CONCLUSIONS

The actual costs of photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy at our affiliated hospitals are lower than those of transurethral prostate resection. The primary reason is likely that most patients who undergo laser vaporization are treated on an outpatient basis compared to those who undergo resection. While significant complications are uncommon, those that prolong inpatient hospitalization such as hyponatremia (transurethral resection syndrome), which is associated with transurethral prostate resection but not with photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy, can add substantial expense. Further studies are warranted to investigate these findings on a broader scale.

Complications of laser prostatectomy: a review of recent data

INTRODUCTION

Laser techniques for the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) due to benign prostate enlargement (BPE) have emerged as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Medline search over the past 4 years was performed to assess the safety, intra- and postoperative morbidity of various laser techniques.

RESULTS

Data on holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) show the highest grade of evidence with two meta-analyses available and prove the low intra- and postoperative morbidity with reproducible long-term results. Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) with the Greenlightlaser (potassium titanyl phosphate, KTP or lithium borate, LBO) is characterized by excellent haemostatic properties in patients with or without oral anticoagulation. Long-term results show a reoperation rate comparable with TURP; however, there is a lack of randomized trials. Various types of diode lasers with different wavelengths are available for laser vaporization; despite their favourable haemostatic properties, a higher invasion depth seems to result in necrosis of the tissue leading to a higher rate of reoperation. Thulium-laser resection of the prostate shows promising intra- and postoperative morbidity, but data are limited and initial results need to be confirmed in large-scale trials.

CONCLUSION

In summary, HoLEP- and KTP-, or LBO-laser vaporization of the prostate are the most mature techniques of laser prostatectomy and treatment alternatives to TURP and OP, whereas the clinical value and durability of procedures with diode laser systems and the thulium laser need to be confirmed in high-quality prospective RCTs.

Laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy: a review

We assessed the therapeutic efficacy and safety of laser prostatectomy (LP) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in patients on oral anticoagulation. We systematically reviewed previous reports, using the Pubmed database and bibliographies of retrieved articles and reviews. The oral anticoagulation included coumarin derivatives and platelet-aggregation inhibitors (PAI). Previous studies do not allow the establishment of definitive conclusions for managing patients on oral anticoagulation and who require BPH surgery. No randomized studies are available. Nevertheless, compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), LP seems to decrease the risk of haemorrhage in patients taking PAI or coumarin derivatives. Therefore, LP is a useful alternative to TURP for managing patients on oral anticoagulation, and could be proposed as the first intention for those patients. Continuing PAI during the procedure is feasible. A replacement of coumarin derivatives by low molecular weight heparin is preferable. No conclusion can be reached on the preferred type of laser technique to treat these patients, but data on laser enucleation is much less abundant and conclusive than that on laser vaporization.

[Photoselective vaporization of the prostate with Laser Greenlight HPS: current role, technical aspects and review of the literature]

Photoselective vaporization of the prostate with 120W HPS Greenlight laser is one of the most attractive modalities of surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia at present. The specific physical characteristics of this laser provides an excellent safety and effectiveness profile, making it the ideal technique for high-risk patients or patients ongoing oral anticoagulation. Moreover, the undeniable reduction of urethral catheterization time and hospital stay compared to transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) involves a much more comfortable postoperative period for patients. We have conducted a Medline/Pubmed search, presenting in this review the outcomes and current surgical techniques described in recent studies. We have also reviewed the controversial aspects and limitations attributed to this technique.