Comparison of Bipolar Plasma Vaporization versus Standard Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Surgical Procedures and Clinical Outcomes for Small Prostate Volumes

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.

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.

Shedding light on polypragmasy of pain after transurethral prostate surgery procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the incidences of post-operative pelvic pain (PPP) in patients undergoing ablation, enucleation and conventional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Using MEDLINE via PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL, randomised control trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting PPP rates post-ablation, enucleation or TURP were identified. The risk of biases (RoB) in RCTs and observation studies were assessed using the Cochrane RoB1.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

62 studies were included for qualitative analysis, while 51 of them reported number of patients with PPP post-intervention. Three observational studies and 13 RCTs compared the rates of PPP in patients undergoing ablation, enucleation or TURP. The most reported types of PPP are dysuria, abdominal pain and irritative symptoms. The pooled incidence of PPP at 1-month follow-up in patients undergoing ablation, enucleation and TURP were 0.15 (95% CI 0.10-0.22), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04-0.19 and 0.10 (95% CI 0.06-0.15), respectively. PPP is no longer prevalent at 3-months and onwards post-operatively. Ablation is associated with a higher risk of PPP than enucleation (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.04-4.62) and TURP (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.03-5.62) in observational studies but not RCTs; and there were no significant differences in the rates of PPP upon comparison of other modalities.

CONCLUSION

PPP is common after transurethral benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery. Patients undergoing ablation had a higher rate of post-intervention PPP than those undergoing enucleation and TURP in observational studies.

Comparison of thermal injury depth of the prostate between plasma kinetic electrode, holmium laser, green light laser and Nd:YAG laser

OBJECTIVE

PlasmaKinetic electrode, holmium laser, green laser and Nd: YAG laser have been used for treating benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). To compare the pathological changes of thermal injury by these different devices.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Tissues donated by several male patients with prostate cancer who have written a consent. The tissues were diced them into small squares with 1 cm long on a side. Cutting experiments were performed in the normal temperature circulating water environment, the specimens of the prostate tissue were fixed in 4% formalin. The sections were then undergone HE and NADH-NBT staining.

RESULTS

The penetration depths and coagulation zone of tissue after treatment were ranked as Nd:YAG laser > plasma Kinetic electrode > green light laser > holmium laser respectively.

CONCLUSION

Holmium laser might have less thermal damage to tissue, although it still needs more research including clinical study. Our results will provide clinicians with some alternative basis for the application.

Comparison of outcomes of Holmium enucleation of the prostate for small- and moderate-sized prostates

There is an ongoing discussion in the literature on the surgical treatment option for small prostate size benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) surgery in small (<30 ml) and moderate (30-80 ml) prostate size as accepted in European Association of Urology guideline. We retrospectively analysed our database between May 2016 and May 2019 and patients who underwent HoLEP surgery. Patients who have prostate size <80 ml were included the study. These patients were divided into two group: group 1 with prostate size <30 ml (n: 64) and group 2 with prostate size 30-80 ml (n: 101). Enucleation time (ET), morcellation time (MT), total operation time (OT), enucleation efficiency (EE), morcellation efficiency (ME), intra- and post-operative complications were analysed. While EE and Hb drop were better in favour of group 2; PSA drop, ET, MT, OT and ME were superior in favour of group 1. In group 1, intra-operative complications were higher (6 vs. 2; p < .05) and post-operative complications did not differ statistically between groups (p = .14). No statistically significant finding was found between groups regarding incontinence. In conclusion, HoLEP is a reliable method in terms of its results in patients with small prostates.

Endoscopic enucleation vs endoscopic vaporization procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia: how should we choose: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of different endoscopic procedures of the prostate techniques, by comparing endoscopic enucleation (EEP) and endoscopic vaporization procedures (EVP) of the prostate; and laser enucleation procedures (L-EEP) vs laser vaporization procedures (L-EVP) surgeries for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed in December 2019 using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. Two analyses were carried out: (1) EEP vs EVP; and (2) L-EEP vs L-EVP. Efficacy and safety were evaluated using perioperative data, functional outcomes, including maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QoL), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), postvoiding residual urine volume (PRV), and rate of complications. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan5.3.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (4907 patients) evaluated EEP vs EVP, and 12 of them (4392 patients) evaluated L-EEP vs L-EVP. EEP showed improved functional outcomes compared with EVP. EEP was always presented a better Qmax at various follow-up times. EEP also associated with a reduced PRV and IPSS at 12 months postsurgery, an increased Qmax, and reduced IPSS and QoL score at both 24 and 36 months postsurgery. In addition, EEP was associated with less total energy utilized and retreatment for residual adenoma, but a longer catheterization time. Among other outcomes, there was no significant difference. L-EEP favors total energy used, retreatment for residual adenoma, and functional outcomes. L-EEP was associated with reduced PRV at 1, 6, and 12 months postsurgery, a greater Qmax at 6 and 12 months postsurgery, a lower IPSS at 12 months postsurgery, and higher Qmax and lower IPSS and QoL scores at 24 and 36 months postsurgery. However, there was no difference at 3 months postsurgery. No significant differences were observed for other perioperative data and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Both EEP and EVP displayed sufficient efficacy and safety for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. EEP and L-EEP were favored in perioperative data, rate of complications, and functional outcomes. However, the clinical significance of those statistical differences was unclear. Hence, higher-quality randomized controlled trials may be needed to provide a clear algorithm.