Holmium Laser Enucleation vs Bipolar Plasmakinetic Enucleation of a Large Volume Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Thromboelastography in Long-Term Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients Diagnosed with Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Undergoing Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A Retrospective Study

Objective

To compare low- vs high-power HoLEP effects on coagulation in patients on antiplatelet (AP) therapy via thromboelastography (TEG).

Methods

210 patients was retrospectively analyzed and stratificated into three discrete groups, specifically: Group A (AP therapy, high-power HoLEP, n = 72); Group B (AP therapy, low-power HoLEP, n=73); Group C (no AP therapy, low-power HoLEP, n = 65). Baseline characteristics and coagulation profiles via TEG were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify independent risk factors associated with hematuria. Furthermore, parameters such as IPSS, Qmax, post-void residual volume V2 and PSA levels were recorded during 1year follow-up.

Results

No differences in terms of baseline characteristics across all groups. Significant differences were observed in the duration of enucleation, morcellation, bladder irrigation, post-operative catheterization, length of hospital stay and the extent of hemoglobin reduction (F = 54.06, 8.54, 6.68, 9.24, 17.06, 5.97, p < 0.05). No differences were noted in postoperative hematuria, urine retention, transfusion rates, and SUI (x1 2 = 1.082 ; x2 2 = 0.197,; x3 2 = 3.981;x4 2 = 0.816, p > 0.05). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that prostate volume emerged as an independent risk factor for hematuria (OR 1.080, 95% CI: 1.007-1.158, p = 0.031). Clinical outcomes including Qmax, IPSS, V2, and PSA demonstrated significant enhancement during 1 year follow-up.

Conclusion

Compared to HP-HoLEP, LP-HoLEP effectively reduces surgical and subsequent processing times, decreases hospital stay duration, and diminishes hemoglobin decline, offering a viable option without discontinuing AP therapy.

The learning curve for transurethral enucleation with bipolar energy for benign prostate hyperplasia: a single-surgeon experience of 494 patients

This study was performed to investigate the learning curve of transurethral enucleation with bipolar energy (TUEB) for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The study involved 494 consecutive patients who underwent TUEB for benign prostatic hyperplasia from August 2018 to March 2022 by one surgeon (SJJ, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea). The patients were followed up at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. To evaluate the learning curve of TUEB, perioperative parameters including the enucleation ratio (enucleated tissue weight/transitional zone volume), TUEB efficiency (enucleated tissue weight/operation time), and enucleation efficiency (enucleated tissue weight/enucleation time) were analyzed. Functional outcomes and postoperative complications were also assessed, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality-of-life (QoL) score, and uroflowmetry outcomes. The patients' median age was 72 (interquartile range [IQR]: 66-78) years, and the estimated prostate volume and transitional zone volume were 63.0 (IQR: 46.0-90.6) ml and 37.1 (IQR: 24.0-60.0) ml, respectively. The enucleation ratio, TUEB efficiency, and enucleation efficiency were 0.60 (IQR: 0.46-0.54) g ml -1 , 0.33 (IQR: 0.22-0.46) g min -1 , and 0.50 (IQR: 0.35-0.72) g min -1 , respectively, plateauing after 70 cases. The functional outcomes, including total IPSS, IPSS QoL score, and uroflowmetry outcomes, significantly improved at 6 months after TUEB (all P < 0.05), but without significant differences over the learning curve. Sixty-five (13.2%) patients developed complications after TUEB, 21.5% of whom experienced major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3). The rate of major complications declined as the number of TUEB cases increased ( P = 0.013). Our results suggest that the efficiency of TUEB stabilized within 70 procedures.

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.

A randomized trial of holmium laser vs thulium laser vs bipolar enucleation of large prostate glands

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcome and morbidity of bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (B-TUEP) and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) with those of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of large symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) through a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial (NCT03916536).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 155 patients were recruited from a single centre between February 2019 and August 2020. All had BPO, with a prostate volume ≥80 ml. Patients were randomly assigned to HoLEP, ThuLEP or B-TUEP using computer-generated random tables in a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants, investigators and surgeons were blinded to group assignment until the date of the operation. Thereafter, the patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax ) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included assessment of other functional urinary variables, peri-operative records, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 138 and 120 patients available for analysis at 6 and 12 months. There was no significant difference in Qmax between the groups at 6 and 12 months (P = 0.4 and P = 0.7, respectively), and no significant difference regarding International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) or postvoid residual urine volume (PVR). The median (interquartile range) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reductions (ng/ml) were similar in the three groups at last follow-up point (4.7 [2.2-7.1]; 5.6 [2.3-9.5] and 5 [3.4-10] after HoLEP, ThuLEP and B-TUEP, respectively). Differences in enucleation time, enucleation efficiencies and auxiliary manoeuvres were statistically insignificant (P = 0.1, 0.8 and 0.07, respectively). At 1 year, patients with prostate volumes >120 ml showed significant IPSS improvement in favour of HoLEP and ThuLEP (P = 0.01). Low- and high-grade adverse effects were recorded in 31 and five cases, respectively, with no statistically significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that ThuLEP and B-TUEP are as safe and effective as HoLEP for the treatment of large-sized BPO. Significant PSA reductions indicate that there was effective adenoma enucleation with all three approaches. The study provides objective evidence that endoscopic enucleation of the prostate is a technique rather than energy dependent procedure.

Comparison of holmium laser enucleation and transurethral resection of prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold-standard classical method for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In minimally invasive surgery, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is considered an alternative option. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to comprehensively evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of TURP and HoLEP the treating BPH. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for all randomized controlled trials published before 1 December 2022 comparing HoLEP and TURP. The study protocol is registered on INPLASY (DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2023.5.0065). Compared with TURP, HoLEP required longer operation time but shorter catheter duration, hospital stay, and bladder irrigation time, as well as less postoperative irrigation. With HoLEP, maximum urinary flow rate at 12 and 24 months after surgery; post-void residual volume at 1, 6, and 12 months; and International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months after surgery were superior to those with TURP. HoLEP was associated with significantly lower risk of hyponatremia, blood transfusion, and urethral stricture but greater risk of postoperative dysuria. Compared with TURP, HoLEP had better curative efficacy at 6, 12, and 24 months after operation and lower incidence of adverse events in patients with BPH.

Comparison of the short-term efficacy and safety of bipolar transurethral electro vaporization and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for moderate and large benign prostatic enlargement

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for moderate [prostate volume (PV) 30-80 ml] and large (≥ 80 ml) benign prostatic enlargement (BPE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Male patients with lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) or urinary retention who underwent B-TUVP or HoLEP treatment in two regional centers were respectively enrolled. Patient characteristics and treatment outcomes were retrospectively compared between B-TUVP and HoLEP.

RESULTS

In patients with moderate and large prostate volume,B-TUVP showed shorter operative time (P < 0.001) and less hemoglobin decrease (P < 0.001) than in HoLEP. In uncatheterised patients, voiding symptoms and patients' quality of life improved after B-TUVP and HoLEP, but these improvement rates were consistently bigger in HoLEP than in B-TUVP. In catheterised patients, the rate of achieving catheter-free status after surgery was higher in HoLEP than in B-TUVP for patients with PV > 80 ml.(P < 0.001) The incidence of postoperative fever was higher in B-TUVP than in HoLEP for patients with PV 30-80 ml (P < 0.001) but not for those with PV > 80 ml.(P=0.08) The Incidence of postoperative stress incontinence(SUI) was higher in HoLEP than in B-TUVP for patients with moderate and large prostate volume.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies that investigated the short-term efficacy and safety of second-generation B-TUVP in comparison with HoLEP for moderate and large BPE. Improvement in LUTS and achievement of catheter-free status were predominant in HoLEP, and these outcomes were more prominent in patients with large BPE of PV > 80 ml. However, B-TUVP resulted in less blood loss, shorter operative duration, and less SUI suggesting that B-TUVP is also well-tolerated surgical modality.

[Quality of life and outcome after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP)]

BACKGROUND

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) was established 20 years ago as an alternative to Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TUR-P) based on improved morbidity in patients with benign prostate syndrome (BPS). HoLEP can be applied independently to almost all sizes of prostate glands and is recommended in national and international guidelines. Although the HoLEP procedure has a good reputation, many patients still prefer conservative treatment due to fears of side-effects such as pain and urinary incontinence. The aim of this study was to identify patients' feelings, fears and perception of their HoLEP treatment based on Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) via questionnaires.

MATERIAL UND METHODS

During the time period from June to December 2020, 152 consecutive patients were treated by HoLEP due to BPS and were interviewed based on questionnaires right after their surgical treatment and 3 months later concerning their satisfaction as well as micturition and continence. Based on a written informed consent, 112 patients were included in the study, and a complete 3-month follow-up was available for 88 patients.

RESULTS

The mean volume of enucleated prostate tissue was 62.1 [g] and the mean prostate volume estimated pre-operatively (trans-rectal ultrasound) was 83.1 [cm3]. Overall patient-reported satisfaction with the hospital stay including surgical treatment was 94.6%; after 3 months it was 91.8%. Concerning micturition, 76.5% of the patients reported satisfaction after surgery and 80.4% were satisfied after 3 months. Urinary incontinence was reported in 8.3% initially and in 9.1% after 3 months. Positive answers to questions concerning the quality of life index [L] were obtained in 62.1% initially and their number increased to 85.7% after 3 months. The share of negative answers decreased from 11.7% after surgery to 3.4% within the 3-month follow-up.

DISCUSSION

HoLEP is a well-established treatment of BPS with lower side-effects compared with TUR-P according to the literature. To address doubts and misgivings, it is important to perform surveys on subjective patient satisfaction after the surgical procedure and over time. The high patient satisfaction could help future patients and the urologists treating them to establish the indication for HoLEP treatment earlier in order to avoid severe LUTS or catheterization.

Observation of complications assessed by Clavien-Dindo classification in different endoscopic procedures of benign prostatic hyperplasia: An observational study

The Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) was widely used in the assessment of surgical complications, but some inconsistencies always existed in urological literature. This study was aimed to report complications of the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP), and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) by using a more detailed way under the framework of CDC. A total of 623 eligible cases underwent endoscopic procedures from January 2018 and December 2020 were divided into the TURP group (212 cases), the PKRP group (208 cases), and the HoLEP group (203 cases) according to the surgical type. Patients' surgical complications assessed by the CDC were compared among the 3 groups. The operation time, intraoperative irrigation volume, postoperative irrigation time and volume, decrease in hemoglobin and sodium, postoperative catheterization time, visual analogue scale, hospital stay of the PKEP group and the HoLEP group were significantly less than those of the TURP group, and the decrease in hemoglobin and visual analogue scale in the HoLEP group were significantly lower than those in the PKEP group (all P < .05). The electrolyte disturbance, urinary tract irritation, and patients with grade II of CDC in the PKRP group were significantly lower than those in the TURP group; The electrolyte disturbance, lower abdominal pain, urinary tract irritation, intraoperative hemorrhage, secondary hemorrhage, clot retention, patients with grade I, II, III of CDC in the HoLEP group were significantly lower than those in the TURP group, and the urinary tract irritation, grade I, II of CDC in the HoLEP group was significantly lower than that in the PKRP group (all P < .05). The CDC should be recommended because of the enhanced insight into surgical complications, and the HoLEP should be given a priority for Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) surgical treatment in terms of the merits in surgical characteristics and complications.

The Efficacy and Safety of Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate Compared With Bipolar Technologies in Treating Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate compared with bipolar technologies in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. We analyzed several databases such PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently reviewed studies for consistent criteria and extracted relevant data. Reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias and strength of the evidence for the body of the literature. Ten randomized controlled trials including 1,157 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The holmium laser group had favorable perioperative outcomes in this study. The holmium laser group identified shorter catheterization duration and shorter hospital stay duration than the bipolar technologies group. Efficiency outcomes, such as International Prostate Symptom Score, peak urinary flow rate, quality of life, postvoid residual urine volume, and international index of erectile function reported no obvious differences between the holmium laser and bipolar technologies groups at the 6 to 12 months follow-up. Bipolar technologies and holmium laser groups shared equivalent effectiveness and safety in treatments for benign prostate hyperplasia. Holmium lasers identified lower catheter times, shorter hospital stays, and lesser risk of hemorrhage than bipolar technologies.

Comparison of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate with Bipolar Plasmakinetic Enucleation of the Prostate: A Randomized, Prospective Controlled Trial at Midterm Follow-Up

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with bipolar plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate (BPEP) in the surgical management of obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) at midterm (minimum 3 years) follow-up. Patients and Methods: Between June 2016 and January 2018, 181 patients who had bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms or refractory retention of urine due to obstructive BPH (prostate 32-128 g) were randomized to undergo either HoLEP or BPEP using the en bloc technique. Patient's age, associated comorbidities, baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR) urine, and quality of life (QoL) scores were comparable in both groups. From each group, 86 patients who completed regular follow-up for 36 months were analyzed. Results: The mean preoperative prostate volume was comparable in both groups (HoLEP group 61.09 ± 28.25 and BPEP group 62.66 ± 27.37 g). The HoLEP group showed a significantly better enucleation time (27.87 ± 13.18 minutes vs 38.37 ± 14.55 minutes), operative time (30.91 ± 14.82 minutes vs 41.63 ± 16.19 minutes), and enucleation efficiency (1.69 ± 0.28 vs 1.28 ± 0.06 g/min), with a lesser drop in hemoglobin (0.46 ± 0.23 vs 0.87 ± 0.26 g/dL). Bladder irrigation time, catheterization time, hospital stay, and sodium drop were comparable in both groups. One patient in the BPEP group needed clot evacuation. Both groups showed a significant reduction in IPSS, improvement in Qmax, reduction in PVR, and improved QoL scores at 3 months, which was maintained till 36 months. At the 3-year follow-up, two patients in each group needed reintervention for bladder neck contracture. Conclusions: HoLEP and BPEP provide comparable safety and efficacy in the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction due to BPH at the immediate and midterm (3-5 years) follow-up. HoLEP has an advantage of being faster with lesser perioperative morbidity.

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.

Comparison of holmium laser enucleation with bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: Results of a multicentre study

To assess the efficacy and morbidity of the holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. The study included 60 (55%) and 49 (45%) patients who underwent laser and bipolar enucleation of the prostate respectively. According to the perioperative data, except for length of hospital stay and enucleated prostate weight, all the remaining parameters were similar between the groups. There were significant differences between the preoperative and the postoperative third and 12th month voiding parameters in both groups. In the laser group, the maximum urine flow rate value was better than the bipolar group at the postoperative third and 12th months. However, we did not find any statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the serum prostate-specific antigen level, International Prostate Symptom Score and postvoid residual urine volume at the postoperative third and 12th months. Our results show that both laser and bipolar techniques are effective minimally invasive surgical treatment options for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. When compared to bipolar technique, laser technique provides shorter hospital stay, more prostatic tissue enucleation and better maximum urine flow rate values.

Short-term efficacy and safety of second generation bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) for large benign prostate enlargement: Results from a retrospective feasibility study

Background

To investigate the efficacy and safety of a second-generation bipolar transurethral electro vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) with the new oval-shaped electrode for large benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) with prostate volume (PV) ≥100ml.

Materials and methods

100 patients who underwent second-generation B-TUVP with the oval-shaped electrode for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) or urinary retention between July 2018 and July 2020 were enrolled in this study. The patients’ characteristics and treatment outcome were retrospectively compared between patients with PV <100ml and ≥100ml.

Results

17/41 (41.5%) cases of PV ≥100ml and 24/59 cases (40.7%) of PV <100ml were catheterised due to urinary retention. The duration of post-operative catheter placement and hospital-stay of PV ≥100ml (3.1±1.3 and 5.6±2.3 days) were not different from PV <100ml (2.7±1.2 and 5.0±2.4 days). In uncatheterised patients (N = 59), post-void residual urine volume (PVR) significantly decreased after surgery in both groups, however, maximum uroflow rate (Q_max) significantly increased after surgery only in PV <100ml but not in PV ≥100ml. Voiding symptoms and patients’ QoL derived from International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS-QoL (IPSS Quality of Life Index) and BPH Impact Index (BII) scores, significantly improved after B-TUVP in both groups. Catheter free status after final B-TUVP among patients with preoperative urinary retention was achieved in 18/24 (75.0%) and 14/17 (82.1%) cases in patient with <100ml and ≥100ml, respectively. There was no significant difference in post-operative Hb after B-TUVP, which was 97.0±5.4% of baseline for PV <100ml and 96.9±6.1% for PV ≥100ml and no TUR syndrome was observed.

Conclusions

This is the first study investigating short-term efficacy and safety of second-generation B-TUVP with the oval-shaped electrode on large BPE. B-TUVP appears to be effective and safe for treating moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary retention in patients with large BPE.

Holmium laser enucleation versus bipolar transurethral enucleation for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia, which one is better?

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the overall efficacy and safety between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (B-TUEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHOD

We systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) to identify eligible comparative studies as of July 2021. The parameters including perioperative results, complications, and functional outcomes were evaluated. RevMan version 5.4 was used for the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies involving 1725 patients were included. HoLEP had lower operative time (p = .03), shorter catheterization time (p = .007), lower bladder irrigation time (p = .01), and higher enucleation weight (p = .01) compared with B-TUEP. However, there were no significant differences between the techniques regarding the length of stay (LOS), hemoglobin drop, transfusion rates, and complications. Furthermore, no significant differences were also observed in postoperative functional outcomes at 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

HoLEP has more advantages in perioperative parameters compared with B-TUEP, but no significant differences are found regarding functional outcomes and complications. Large-scale studies with long-term follow-up are required to compare the outcomes of these two techniques.

Holmium laser enucleation versus bipolar resection in the management of large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the mid-term safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate in the management of large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia.

METHODS

From December 2016 to March 2018, patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (≥80 cc) were randomized (block randomization, computer-generated random list) to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (57 patients) or bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (55 patients). Patients were excluded if they had an International Prostate Symptom Score <13, a maximum urinary flow rate >15 mL/s or presence of prostate cancer, bladder stone, urethral stricture, neurogenic bladder, or previous prostate surgery. The primary outcome was hemoglobin loss. The analysis was intention-to-treat. Postoperative findings (36 months) were compared to baseline characteristics. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed for risk factors predicting hemoglobin loss or operative time in all patients.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate was associated with significantly better operative time (P = 0.019), operative efficiency (P < 0.001), hemoglobin loss (P < 0.001), catheterization duration (P < 0.001) and hospital stay (P < 0.001) compared to bipolar transurethral resection of prostate. Both procedures were safe, with no significant difference in total complications (P = 0.128). Blood transfusion (P = 0.026) and capsular perforation (P = 0.239) were reported only in the bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate group. There was no significant difference in rates of urinary tract infections (P = 0.714), urethral strictures (P = 0.359), or transient stress incontinence (P = 0.717). At the last follow-up (3 years), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate was associated with significantly better International Prostate Symptom Scores, prostate-specific antigen levels and maximum urinary flow rates compared to bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (P < 0.05). In logistic regression analyses, prostate size and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate were associated with significantly greater hemoglobin loss, whereas prostate size, capsular perforation, and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate were associated with significantly longer operative time.

CONCLUSION

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate are effective and safe for the management of moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (≥80 cc). However, if both techniques are available, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate is preferred due its better efficacy and safety profile.

Laser enucleation for prostates larger than 100 mL: Comparison of HoLEP and ThuLEP

Recently, with the advancements in laser technology, Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) have come to the fore in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of HoLEP and ThuLEP in patients with >100 ml prostate volume. Patients who underwent HoLEP and ThuLEP between July 2017 and March 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups as HoLEP (Group 1, n = 121) and ThuLEP (Group 2, n = 104). Perioperative parameters, functional outcomes, continence status, intra and post-operative complications were compared between groups in the post-operative 1st and 6th month. No significant difference was found in terms of total laser energy (TLE), morcellation efficiency (ME), enucleated tissue weight (ETW), complication rates (CR) and continence status of patients between both groups (p > .05). In favour of ThuLEP group, there were statistically significant differences regarding total operation time (TOT), laser efficiency (LE), enucleation time (ET) and enucleation efficiency (EE) between groups (p ≤ .05). HoLEP and ThuLEP can be used safely and effectively in prostates larger than 100 ml.

Plasma Kinetic Enucleation Vs Holmium Laser Enucleation for Treating Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial with a 3-Year Follow-Up

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: A total of 160 patients with indications for the surgical treatment of BPH were randomly assigned to receive either PKEP or HoLEP prospectively. Baseline characteristics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes of the patients were recorded. One hundred twenty-six (78.75%) patients (PKEP 64 vs HoLEP 62) completed the 3-year follow-up assessment. Results: Patients in both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Compared with PKEP, HoLEP was associated with shorter operative time as well as take-out time, lower perioperative hemoglobin decrease, and shorter bladder irrigation time, catheterization time, and hospital stay time. PKEP was superior to HoLEP in terms of the noise of the machine and hospitalization expenses. There were no significant differences in enucleating time, resected weight, and serum sodium levels. Both groups achieved satisfactory results and maintained improvement from baseline in terms of maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), International Prostatic Symptomatic Score, quality of life, and postvoid residual at 3-year follow-up, with no significant differences between the two procedures. Except for re-catheterization rate, postoperative data such as transrectal ultrasound volume, International Index of Erectile Function-5, and follow-up scores of the flexible cystourethroscopy results, as well as the acute and mid-to long-term complications after surgery, were statistically similar. Conclusion: The 3-year follow-up data of this randomized trial confirmed that both PKEP and HoLEP were effective and safe surgical procedures for the transurethral management of BPH. HoLEP presented certain advantages compared to PKEP, such as reduced operative duration, decreased risk of blood loss, and less bladder irrigation, hospital stay time, and re-catheterization rate, whereas PKEP had lower noise and no additional laser cost. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-13004468).

Pharmacological and interventional treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: An evidence‐based comparative review

Introduction

The recommended treatment for bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) after the failure of behavioral therapy and fluid modification includes pharmacological, minimally invasive interventional, and surgical approaches. Each option has different risk and benefit profiles, and the urologist must be aware of the unique characteristics of each option in order to be able to accurately counsel the patients based on their individual values and preferences. We provide a comparative review of the commonest pharmacological and most widely performed interventional/surgical treatments for BPO, discussing the evidence for the treatment characteristics that are most useful for the practicing urologist.

Methods

A search of the PubMed database was performed for articles reporting on the following treatments for LUTS due to BPO: α‐blockers, 5α‐reductase inhibitors, phosphpdiesterase‐5 inhibitors, prostatic urethral lift (Urolift), convective radiofrequency water vapor thermal therapy (Rezum), Temporary implantable Nitinol Device (iTIND), prostate artery embolization (PAE), transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), Aquablation, and anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP). We performed a narrative review focussing on the following outcomes: efficacy, safety, durability, duration of catheterization, length of stay, re‐treatment rate, efficacy in special situations (enlarged median lobe, prostate size, urinary retention, and anticoagulant use), and sexual adverse events.

Results

AEEP offers the greatest long‐term improvement in maximum flow rate, IPSS, and prostate volume reduction, with lowest re‐treatment rate, followed by PVP, TURP, and Aquablation. Urolift, Rezum, and PAE have similar efficacy for prostate volume up to 80cc, and all are more effective than the pharmacological treatment. Urolift offers the lowest rate of sexual dysfunction, followed by Rezum, and both can be performed as a day case under local anesthesia.

Conclusion

Several treatment options exist to treat voiding LUTS due to BPO. Newer minimally invasive treatments reduce the hospital stay and postoperative complications, whereas AEEP provides the greatest long‐term symptom improvement at the expense of higher morbidity and sexual dysfunction. Men should be counseled regarding all suitable treatment options as some may favor reduced efficacy in association with reduced side effects.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate in management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of holmium enucleation of the prostate and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate.

METHODS

In our randomized controlled trial, 120 patients were allocated into two equal groups representing holmium enucleation of the prostate and bipolar enucleation of the prostate. Operative parameters were recorded according to operative, enucleation and resection time in addition to the intraoperative complications. Patients were followed up at 1, 3 and 12 months postoperative to assess the prostate size, post-voiding residual urine, International Prostate Symptom Score, peak urine flow rate and quality of life, and compared with the preoperative parameters. Cost analysis was evaluated for both procedures.

RESULTS

We evaluated 107 patients who finished our follow up and their data were analyzed. The prostate size was 135.2 ± 34.8 mL and 125 ± 26.9 mL for holmium enucleation of the prostate and bipolar enucleation of the prostate, respectively. Holmium enucleation of the prostate was associated with a shorter operative time of 83.43 ± 6.92 min compared with 94.7 ± 12.2 min in bipolar enucleation of the prostate groups. Holmium enucleation of the prostate was associated with an earlier catheter removal time and shorter hospital stay compared with bipolar enucleation of the prostate. Postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life, post-voiding residual urine, peak urine flow rate, prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume reduction were comparable between both groups, and they both showed statistically significant improvement compared with their preoperative parameters. In the cost analysis, holmium enucleation of the prostate was more cost-effective than bipolar enucleation of the prostate.

CONCLUSION

Both holmium enucleation of the prostate and bipolar enucleation of the prostate are safe and effective in the surgical management of large prostatic adenomas. Holmium enucleation of the prostate has a shorter operative time and hospital stay with earlier catheter removal time, and is more cost-effective than bipolar enucleation of the prostate.

Holmium Laser Enucleation Versus Bipolar Plasmakinetic Resection for Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Patients with Large-Volume Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Randomized-Controlled Trial

Objectives: To compare the safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) vs bipolar plasmakinetic resection of prostate (BPRP) in the management of large-sized (≥75 g) benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: This randomized-controlled trial recruited 145 symptomatic BPH patients who had failed medical management, and who had undergone either HoLEP (Versa pulse^® 100 W; n = 73) or BPRP (AUTOCON^® II 400 ESU; n = 72). Both groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney, chi-square, Student-t, or Fisher exact tests as appropriate. Preoperative vs postoperative findings (24 months) were compared using paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: The two groups were comparable for most preoperative findings including prostate size (p = 0.629), although HoLEP included more patients on anticoagulants (p = 0.001). HoLEP was associated with significantly less operative duration (p < 0.001), hemoglobin loss (p < 0.001), catheterization duration (p = 0.009), and hospital stay (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in total complications (p = 0.291) and each separate complication. Blood transfusion was reported only with BPRP (p = 0.058). At 24 months of follow-up, there was significant improvement in all the parameters in each group (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS], maximum urinary flow rate [Q_max]_, quality of life [QoL], and postvoid residual urine [PVRU]; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between both groups in postoperative IPSS (p = 0.08), Q_max (p = 0.051), QoL (p = 0.057), or PVRU (p = 0.069). There was significantly better percentage improvement of both IPSS (p = 0.006) and QoL (p = 0.025) in HoLEP. HoLEP and smaller removed (resected or enucleated) tissues were associated with a reduction in the primary outcomes (hemoglobin loss and operative duration) in logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: HoLEP showed better safety profile with significantly less operative duration, hemoglobin loss, hospital stay, and catheterization duration. Although both procedures were effective, HoLEP showed significantly better percentage improvement of both IPSS and QoL. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04143399.

Asymptomatic Uncountable Urinary Bladder Stones Removal: Play the Winner

Urinary bladder stones are a common condition in elderly males, and they are usually related to infravesical obstruction secondary to prostate enlargement. Endoscopic management of bladder stone is the gold standard treatment; yet, in some cases, return to conventional open surgery is necessary. In our article, we reported the case of a 73-year-old male patient with accidentally discovered multiple urinary bladder stones. Cystolithotomy was the treatment of choice which went uneventfully with a smooth postoperative course.

Endoscopic enucleation for prostate larger than 60 mL: comparison between holmium laser enucleation and plasmakinetic enucleation

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of two different energy sources, holmium laser and bipolar current for endoscopic enucleation of prostate larger than 60 mL.

METHODS

A prospective, monocentric, comparative, non-randomized study was conducted including all patients treated for prostate larger than 60 mL, measured by transrectal ultrasound. Patients were assigned to each group based on the surgeons' practice. Perioperative data were collected (preoperative characteristics, operating, catheterization and hospitalization times, hemoglobin loss, complications) and functional outcomes (IPSS, IPSS Quality of Life (QoL), PSA) at 3 months and 1 year.

RESULTS

100 patients were included in each group from October 2015 to March 2018. No differences between HoLEP and plasma groups were observed at baseline, except for mean IPSS score, IPSS QoL score and preoperative PVR that were significantly higher in the HoLEP group. Operating time (142.1 vs 122.4 min; p = 0.01), catheterization time (59.6 vs 44.4 h; p = 0.01) and hospitalization time (2.5 vs 1.8 days; p = 0.02) were significantly shorter in the plasma group. Complication and transfusion rate were no significantly different between HoLEP and plasma. No significant differences were observed concerning functional outcomes at 3 months and 1 year. The urinary incontinence rate was higher 21.1% vs 6.4% (p < 0.01) at 3 months in HoLEP group, but no difference was observed at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Holmium and plasma are both safe and effective for endoscopic treatment for prostate larger than 60 mL. Operating, catheterization and hospitalization times were significantly shorter in the plasma group. The complication rate and functional outcomes were not significantly different.

Sexual outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of prostate

The emergence of various endoscopic enucleation techniques in the past decade has provided surgeons with more options and opportunities in performing enucleation. With the same surgical principle as holmium laser enucleation of prostate, the early results of different techniques were comparable. However, sexual outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) were less commonly reported than the voiding and urodynamic outcomes. In this review, the sexual outcomes including erectile function, ejaculatory and orgasmic function of various endoscopic enucleation technique would be studied. The overall sexual outcomes were heterogeneous and inconclusive. Outcomes measurement, sample size calculation, hypothesis generation and selection criteria were not specifically designed for sexual outcomes or even available. There were also limitations in the individual sexual assessment tools. Nonetheless, most studies showed no significant deterioration of erectile function after EEP, and ejaculation dysfunction was common. Looking forward in the field of benign prostatic enlargement surgery, the 'one size fits all' notion should be abandoned. Treatment should be tailor-made according to the prostate size, co-morbidities and sexual needs. The sexual outcomes of enucleation have to be better studied and defined. More prospective controlled studies focusing primarily on sexual functions are needed. For enucleation surgeons, exploring different ejaculatory-sparing technique could be the golden opportunities in further consolidating the role and expanding the indication of enucleation surgery.