Transurethral anatomical enucleation of the prostate with Tm:YAG support (ThuLEP): Evolution and variations of the technique. The inventors' perspective

Real world propensity score matched analysis evaluating the influence of en-bloc vs. non en-bloc techniques, energy and instrumentation on enucleation outcomes for large and very large prostates

PURPOSE

The primary aim of the study was to evaluate if en-bloc vs. non en-bloc made a difference to intra-, peri- and post-operative surgical outcomes of anatomical endoscopic enucleation (AEEP) in large (> 80 cc) and very large prostates (> 200 cc). The secondary aim was to determine the influence of energy and instruments used.

METHODS

Data of patients with > 80 cc prostate who underwent surgery between 2019 and 2022 were obtained from 16 surgeons across 13 centres in 9 countries. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce confounding. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate factors associated with postoperative urinary incontinence (UI).

RESULTS

2512 patients were included with 991 patients undergoing en-bloc and 1521 patients undergoing non-en-bloc. PSM resulted in 481 patients in both groups. Total operation time was longer in the en-bloc group (p < 0.001), enucleation time was longer in the non en-bloc group (p < 0.001) but morcellation times were similar (p = 0.054). Overall, 30 day complication rate was higher in the non en-bloc group (16.4% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.032). Rate of late complications (> 30 days) was similar (2.3% vs. 2.5%; p > 0.99). There were no differences in rates of UI between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, Qmax, pre-operative, post-void residual urine (PVRU) and total operative time were predictors of UI.

CONCLUSIONS

In experienced hands, AEEP in large prostates by the en-bloc technique yields a lower rate of complication and a slightly shorter operative time compared to the non en-bloc approach. However, it does not have an effect on rates of post-operative UI.

Laparoscopic prostatectomy with complete urethral reconstruction for sexual active BPH patients

OBJECTIVE

To describe our technique of transvesical laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) plus complete urethral reconstruction(CUR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From May 2019 to May 2021, 28 BPH patients with prostate volumes > 80 ml and the requirement to preserve the ejaculatory function (EF) received LSP plus CUR. Baseline demographics, pathology data, perioperative and postoperative complications, and functional outcomes were assessed. Data were analyzed with the Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

The median prostate volume was 106 ml. All patients successfully underwent LSP with no intraoperative complications or conversions to open surgery. The median operative time was 146 min. A total of five Clavien-Dindo Grade1-2 postoperative complications were noted, including infection, prolonged urine leakage and cardiac arrhythmia. No patient reported postoperative urgent or stress urinary incontinence. Functional outcomes at one-year follow-up demonstrated significant improvement from baseline with median IPSS and Qmax (p both < 0.001). Compared with baseline, no significant difference was observed in IIEF and MSHQ-EjD-SF at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support transperitoneal-transvesical LSP plus CUR as a safe and effective surgical technique for treating BPH with large prostate adenoma, regardless of the volume of the median lobe, especially for patients requiring to preserve antegrade ejaculation.

What is the effect of laser anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate on the ejaculatory functions? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Laser anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (LAEEP) has emerged as a promising new approach in endoscopic surgery for BPH. LAEEP could still result in ejaculatory dysfunction.

AIM

This systematic review aimed to examine the impact of LAEEP on male ejaculatory functions.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, and 15 records were included. Outcomes of interest included ejaculatory dysfunction (retrograde ejaculation, painful ejaculation, etc.) and validated questionnaire scores. The quality of studies included in the systematic review was determined using QUADAS scoring.

RESULTS

We retrieved data for 1877 men in 15 clinical studies investigating LAEEP surgery and reporting EjD rates. While only three of the obtained studies were on thulium fiber (ThuLEP), the rest were on holmium (HoLEP). The definition of "Ejaculatory Dysfunction" was not standardized, but in most works, it is referred to as retrograde ejaculation (RE). There were no data on the relationship between other LAEEP techniques and ejaculation functions. The authors compared the outcomes of used standard laser enucleation techniques with the modified techniques. The RE rate in LAEEP was 62.1 ± 25.1%, 71.3 ± 16.1% in standard techniques, and 27.2 ± 18.1% in ejaculation-preserving modified techniques (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrated that ejaculation-preserving techniques, i.e., modified techniques are superior to standard techniques. Studies have also shown that ejaculatory dysfunction rates gradually decrease with long-term follow-ups. Future well-designed studies could further investigate the ejaculation-preserving modification of LAEEP techniques and how they impact EjD rates and other sexual function outcomes.

Thulium: YAG vs continuous-wave thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate: do potential advantages of thulium fiber lasers translate into relevant clinical differences?

PURPOSE

To compare endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser and a super-pulsed thulium fiber laser set in continuous-wave (CW) mode, and to evaluate whether theoretical advantages of thulium fiber lasers, related to their shorter wavelength, translate into relevant clinical differences.

METHODS

In total, 110 patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to undergo either thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) or CW thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (CW-ThuFLEP). Intraoperative and postoperative variables and complications were compared. Micturition improvement was assessed at 3-month follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine (PVR) and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Erectile function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5).

RESULTS

No significant differences between the ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP groups were found in terms of operative time (70.69 vs 72.41 min), enucleation time (50.23 vs 53.33 min), enucleated tissue weight (40.2 vs 41.9 g), enucleation efficiency (0.80 vs 0.79 g/min), catheterization time (2.45 vs 2.57 days), hospital stay (2.82 vs 2.95 days) and hemoglobin drop (1.05 vs 1.27 g/dl). At 3-month follow-up, no significant differences were found in IPSS (5.09 vs 5.81), Qmax (26.51 vs 27.13 ml/s), PVR (25.22 vs 23.81 ml) and IIEF-5 (14.01 vs 14.54).

CONCLUSION

ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP were equivalent in relieving patients from LUTS and improving micturition. Theoretical advantages of the TFL, such as shallower penetration depth and improved vaporization capacity, did not translate into relevant perioperative outcomes or clinical differences.

Clinical Implications of Nadir Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels After Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate

Objective

Prostate-specific antigen levels after transurethral enucleation of the prostate may serve as indicators of residual cancer foci. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between the post-transurethral enucleation of the prostate nadir prostate-specific antigen level and prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 428 men who underwent transurethral enucleation of the prostate between March 2015 and April 2021. Based on the following exclusion criteria, we excluded 106 men from our analysis: men with metastatic prostate cancer, incomplete transurethral enucleation of the prostate, and missing prostate-specific antigen or prostate size data. Three hundred and twenty-two patients were finally enrolled in our study. These patients were classified into four groups according to the surgical pathology: benign, transition zone (cancer only in the adenoma or transition zone), peripheral zone, and transition and peripheral zones. The optimal cutoff post-transurethral enucleation of the prostate nadir prostate-specific antigen level that predicted residual prostate cancer was determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Results

In total, 71 (22.0%) men exhibited prostate cancer (median follow-up, 38.0 months). The benign and combined cancer groups showed similar adenoma removal rates (103.0% and 106.7%, respectively). The median nadir prostate-specific antigen levels after transurethral enucleation of the prostate were 0.76, 0.63, 1.79, and 1.70 ng/ml in the benign, transition zone, peripheral zone, and transition and peripheral zone groups, respectively (p < 0.001), with no difference between the benign and transition zone groups (p = 0.458); this suggested that complete transurethral enucleation of the prostate removed all cancer nests in the adenoma in the transition zone group. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that nadir prostate-specific antigen ≧1.7 ng/ml predicted residual cancer (area under the curve: 0.787) or cancer with a Gleason score of ≧7 (area under the curve: 0.816) in the remaining prostate. Limitations include the retrospective design and the perioperative peripheral zone biopsy rate.

Conclusions

The post-transurethral enucleation of the prostate nadir prostate-specific antigen ≧1.7 ng/ml after complete transurethral enucleation of the prostate can predict significant residual cancer. Prostate cancer patients with low post-transurethral enucleation of the prostate prostate-specific antigen levels can be conservatively managed.

Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate Is Better than Robot-assisted Simple Prostatectomy

In 2022, endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) is the treatment of choice for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) for glands >80 ml and is a valid alternative for patients with bleeding disorders. Unlike robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, EEP has no additional access-related trauma and can be performed using the same instruments as for bipolar enucleoresection. With favorable costs, EEP can serve as a global solution for BPO treatment.

Enucleation vs vaporization of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a head-to-head comparison of the various outcomes and complications. A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Vaporization of the prostate (VP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are reliable and frequently used methods for BPO relief. Both surgeries utilize lasers and EAU recommends them in similar patient cohorts. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative results of patients who had undergone VP and EEP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was performed in three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus). The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero, CRD42020204739. Primary outcomes were functional results (IPSS, QoL, PVR, Qmax), and secondary outcomes were intraoperative results, postoperative PSA and prostate volume, complications, and recurrence rate.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

VP required less operative time compared to EEP, mean difference=-5.51 (95%CI -7.52; -3.50). IPSS and Qmax for VP were worse after 12-month follow-up, mean difference=0.89 (95%CI 0.52; 1.27) and -3.7 (95%CI -4.56; -2.85), respectively, while QoL did not differ significantly. Postoperative PSA level was higher in the VP group, mean difference=2.28 (95%CI 2.00; 2.55). VP was associated with reduced Clavien-Dindo grade I (OR=4.16; 95%CI 2.96; 5.84) and grade II (OR=3.79; 95%CI 2.25; 6.39) complication rate, especially in terms of the percentage of blood transfusion and transient urinary incontinence. The rate of complications grade IIIa and higher was similar (3 - 6%). Reoperation rate was only estimated in one study and was significantly higher in the PVP group at 60 months of follow-up, 2.7% vs 0%, p<0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

EEP and VP share the efficacy and safety in BPH management. Our meta-analysis shows comparable complication rate in Clavien-Dindo III, VP superiority in operation time, and EEP superiority in long-term functional outcomes and PSA reduction.

Educational value of YouTube Surgical Videos of Thulium Laser Enucleation of The Prostate (ThuLEP): the quality assessment

Background

To assess the educational value of YouTube surgical videos of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP).

Methods

A comprehensive search of “ThuLEP” or “thulium laser enucleation of the prostate” was performed on YouTube on October 31, 2020. According to the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS, we created a checklist to assess the educational value of these videos. The checklist included 20 options. Each option represented one point. The total score was the sum of all the points. The higher score represents the higher educational value.

Results

A total of 70 videos were included. The average number of views were 1,366 (range, 11–30,884). The mean video length was 16.59 mins (range, 1.20–70.35 mins). Only 22.9% (16/70) videos had audio or/and written commentary in English language. Although 67.4% (47/70) videos were present step by step, only 21.4% (15/70) videos did the detailed explanation of critical steps. The mean score of the videos was 5.5 points (range, 1–15). No videos met all the points of the checklist. The mean percentage conformity of the videos was 28% (range, 5–75%). The educational score of the videos had no significant positive correlation with the number of views.

Conclusions

The majority of ThuLEP videos on YouTube platform have low educational value. Videos often lack important and detailed explanations about surgical procedures. The ThuLEP learner should watch these videos selectively. These findings remind us that a global effort should be made to improve the educational value of YouTube surgical videos, and more reporting guidelines about urological endoscopic surgery are still needed.

Lasers in Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate-Do We Really Need Them

The acronym EEP, coding for transurethral Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate, was introduced in 2016 by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines panel on management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Since then, a laser-based treatment, Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP), and the current-based treatment of bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP) are equally appreciated as valuable options for the management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This was mainly inspired by the results of two meta-analyses on randomized controlled trials, comparing open prostatectomy with either Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) or bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP). Prior to that, HoLEP was embraced as the only valid option for transurethral enucleation, although evidence for equivalence existed as early as 2006, but was not recognized due to a plethora of acronyms for bipolar energy-based treatments and practiced HoLEP-centrism. On the other hand, the academic discourse focused on different (other) laser approaches that came up, led by Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) Vapoenucleation (ThuVEP) in 2009 and, finally, transurethral anatomical enucleation with Tm:YAG support (thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuLEP) in 2010. Initially, the discourse on lasers focused on the different properties of lasers rather than technique or surgical anatomy, respectively. In and after 2016, the discussion ultimately moved towards surgical technique and accepting anatomical preparation as the common of all EEP techniques (AEEP). Since then, the unspoken question has been raised, whether lasers are still necessary to perform EEP in light of existing evidence, given the total cost of ownership (TCO) for these generators. This article weighs the current evidence and comes to the conclusion that no evidence of superiority of one modality over another exists with regard to any endpoint. Therefore, in the sense of critical importance, AEEP can be safely and effectively performed without laser technologies and without compromise.