Introduction of a New Score to Assess Surgical Efficiency in Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate

Learning curve and functional outcomes after laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostate hyperplasia according to surgeon's caseload

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of surgical caseload on safety, efficacy, and functional outcomes of laser enucleation of the prostate (LEP) applying a structured mentoring program.

METHODS

Patient characteristics, perioperative data, and functional outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Linear and logistic regression models analyzed the effect of caseload on complications, functional outcomes and operative speed. Within the structured mentoring program a senior surgeon was present for the first 24 procedures completely, for partial steps in procedures 25-49, and as needed thereafter.

RESULTS

A total of 677 patients from our prospective institutional database (2017-2022) were included for analysis. Of these, 84 (12%), 75 (11%), 82 (12%), 106 (16%), and 330 patients (49%) were operated by surgeons at (A) < 25, (B) 25-49, (C) 50-99, (D) 100-199, and (E) ≥ 200 procedures. Preoperative characteristics were balanced (all p > 0.05) except for prostate volume, which increased with caseload. There was no significant difference in change of IPSS, Quality of life, ICIQ, pad usage, peak urine flow, residual urine, and major complications (Group A: 8.3 to E: 7.6%, p = 0.2) depending on the caseload. Caseload was not associated (Odds ratio: 0.7-1.4, p > 0.2) with major complications in the multivariable logistic regression model. Only operating time was significantly shorter with increasing caseload in the multivariable analysis (111-55 min, beta 23.9-62.9, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

With a structured mentoring program, the safety and efficacy of LEP can be ensured even during the learning curve with very good outcome quality. Only the operating time decreases significantly with increasing experience of the surgeon.

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Efficiency by Prostate Gland Size: Is There a Sweet Spot?

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is one of only two AUA guideline-recommended prostate size-independent surgeries for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). The significant variation in gland size treated results in a wide range of enucleation and morcellation times. We sought to understand the effect of prostate size on HoLEP efficiency to better educate patients and improve operative room utilization. After IRB approval, we identified patients from 1 July 2016 to 1 January 2020 who underwent HoLEP by two endourologists. Our primary objectives were to assess the effects of increasing increments (25 g) of mean enucleated prostate tissue weight on enucleation and morcellation efficiency (g/min). One-way Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA with Dunn’s post hoc test was used, with significant p < 0.05. We included 675 HoLEPs with all comers mean tissue weight resected of 72.1 g (Range 1–448 g), energy used 110.00 kJ (10.73–340 kJ), enucleation time 48.6 min (5–151 min), and morcellation time 10.1 min (0.5–113 min). Average enucleation efficiency increased with increasing prostate size categories (e.g., <25 g–0.48 g/min, >325 g–3.91 g/min) (K-W ANOVA p = 0.004, Dunn’s post hoc p = 0.004). The combined average enucleation and morcellation efficiency was ≥5 g/min between 55 and 271 g. Inefficiency for cases <55 g was driven by enucleation, while >271 g case inefficiency was driven by morcellation. Increasing tissue weight at the time of HoLEP is associated with a linear relationship of increasing enucleation and decreasing morcellation efficiencies.

Safety and Efficacy of High-Powered Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate within 1-3 Weeks Following Prostate Biopsy

PURPOSE

We aim to document the feasibility, perioperative safety, and the 12-month efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) within 1-3 weeks following transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy.

METHODS

Data of the patients who underwent HoLEP following TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between March 2017 and July 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 had undergone HoLEP in the early period after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, while group 2 patients were biopsy-naive ("control group"). All patients were assessed preoperatively by a physical examination with the digital rectal examination; time from biopsy to HoLEP; measurement of Qmax, postvoiding residual volume, and prostate volume by transabdominal ultrasonography; serum prostate-specific antigen level, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS); the International Index of Erectile Function-5 questionnaire; and urine analysis. The patients were reevaluated at 3- and 12-month follow-up. Perioperative and postoperative complications were documented according to the modified Clavien-Dindo System.

RESULTS

Group 1 comprised 66 patients with a mean age of 67.3 ± 6.7 (range, 53-86) years, and group 2 comprised 114 patients with a mean age of 69.4 ± 9.4 (range, 36-95) years. The operation, enucleation, and morcellation efficiencies were not statistically significant between the groups. Preoperative Qmax and IPSS values were significantly improved after HoLEP surgery in the 3rd and 12th months in all patients. Our complication rates were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

High-powered HoLEP using 140 W energy within 1-3 weeks following TRUS-guided prostate biopsy is a feasible procedure with high enucleation efficiency, low perioperative morbidity, and excellent functional outcomes. A recent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy is not a contraindication to HoLEP.

Active Surveillance for Incidental (cT1a/b) Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Outcomes of the Prospective Noninterventional HAROW Study

INTRODUCTION

Optimal treatment for incidental prostate cancer (IPC) after surgical treatment for benign prostate obstruction is still debatable. We report on long-term outcomes of IPC patients managed with active surveillance (AS) in a German multicenter study.

METHODS

HAROW (2008-2013) was designed as a noninterventional, prospective, health-service research study for patients with localized prostate cancer (≤cT2), including patients with IPC (cT1a/b). A follow-up examination of all patients treated with AS was carried out. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival and discontinuation rates were determined.

RESULTS

Of 210 IPC patients, 68 opted for AS and were available for evaluation. Fifty-four patients had cT1a category and 14 cT1b category. Median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR: 5.7-9.1). Eight patients died of which 6 were still under AS or watchful waiting (WW). No PCa-specific death could be observed. One patient developed metastasis. Twenty-three patients (33.8%) discontinued AS changing to invasive treatment: 12 chose radical prostatectomy, 7 radiotherapy, and 4 hormonal treatment. Another 19 patients switched to WW. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 10-year overall, cancer-specific, metastasis-free, and intervention-free survival was 83.8% (95% CI: 72.2-95.3), 100%, 98.4% (95% CI: 95.3-99.9), and 61.0% (95% CI: 47.7-74.3), respectively. In multivariable analysis, age (RR: 0.97; p < 0.001), PSA density ≥0.2 ng/mL2 (RR: 13.23; p < 0.001), and PSA ≥1.0 ng/mL after surgery (RR: 5.19; p = 0.016) were significantly predictive for receiving an invasive treatment.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with other AS series with a general low-risk prostate cancer population, our study confirmed the promising survival outcomes for IPC patients, whereas discontinuation rates seem to be lower for IPC. Thus, IPC patients at low risk of progression may be good candidates for AS.