Does Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) still have a steep learning curve? Our experience of 100 consecutive cases from Turkey

Early experience of "En bloc" holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in Saudi Arabia

Purpose

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) showed higher efficacy than transurethral resection for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The present study aims to report the outcome of BPH treatment by HoLEP in a tertiary center.

Patients and Methods

An observational prospectively collected data for consecutive symptomatic BPH patients undergoing HoLEP between January 2020 and December 2021. Demographic and perioperative data were collected with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life, peak flow rate (Qmax), residual urine postvoid residual (PVR), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) changes, in addition to perioperative and late adverse events.

Results

One hundred patients were included with a median age of 73 years (range 65-80). The IPSS improved by 80% postoperatively (25 vs. 5, P < 0.001). Similarly, Qmax significantly improved. Seven patients were found to have incidental prostate cancer. No patient needed a perioperative blood transfusion. Compared to its preoperative values, follow-up PSA has been reduced by 75% (P < 0.001). Urethral stricture and bladder neck contracture were noted in < 2% of the patients.

Conclusions

HoLEP is feasible for all prostate sizes and a safe and effective treatment for BPH patients; our results are consistent with the reported data in the literature regarding functional outcomes, complication rates, and urinary incontinence rates.

Transurethral versus open enucleation of the prostate in Sweden - a retrospective comparative cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if treatment with transurethral enucleation of the prostate (TUEP) during the learning curve is as efficient and safe in the short term as transvesical open prostate enucleation (OPE), in patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) > 80 ml in a population in Sweden.  Methods: 54 patients with ultrasound verified BPO > 80 ml and indication for surgery underwent TUEP or OPE between 2013 and 2019. Peri- and postoperative outcome variables regarding voiding efficiency and morbidity from 20 OPE at Skåne University Hospital (SUS) and from the first 34 TUEP performed at SUS and Ystad Hospital were retrospectively assembled. Follow-up data from the first 6 postoperative months were collected by chart review.

RESULTS

Intraoperative bleeding during TUEP was less than in OPE (225 ml vs. 1,000 ml). TUEP took longer surgery time than OPE (210 vs. 150 min.). Within 30 days postoperatively, bleeding occurred less often after TUEP (23% vs. 40%), requiring one fourth of the blood transfusions given after OPE. After TUEP, patients had shorter hospitalisation (3 days vs. 7 days) and catheterisation time (3 days vs. 12 days). During the 6-month follow-up period, incontinence and UTI defined as symtomatic significant bacteriuria (urinary culture) were observed as main complications after TUEP and OPE. Functional outcome data availability (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] questionnaire, uroflowmetry, residual urine) were limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with TUEP during the learning curve led to less bleeding, shorter hospitalisation- and catheterisation time than treatment with OPE. However, surgery time was shorter with OPE. There were no major differences between the groups concerning mid-term functional outcomes, with the reservation of an inconsistent follow-up.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) as same-day surgery: A safe and feasible option

OBJECTIVE

To study the feasibility of holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) performed as a same-day surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective observational study including 25 patients submitted to HoLEP. Patients were discharged the same day if they met the established criteria.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 65.1 years and prostate volume was 45.8cc. All patients were discharged the same day of surgery. The overall complication rate at 30 days was 12% (Clavien I 100%). The rate of re-hospitalization was 0%. Patient satisfaction rate with the day surgery pathway was 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial analysis of our results suggests that outpatient HoLEP is a safe and effective alternative with low rate of complications. According to satisfaction rates, patients prefer the day surgery pathway for the performance of HoLEP.

Comparative analysis of MOSESTM technology versus novel thulium fiber laser (TFL) for transurethral enucleation of the prostate: A single-institutional study

INTRODUCTION

Novel laser technologies have been developed for the minimally invasive surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of MOSESTM technology versus the thulium fiber laser (TFL) in patients with BPH undergoing transurethral enucleation of the prostate.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of eighty-two patients who underwent transurethral enucleation of the prostate using MOSESTM or TFL technologies from August 2020 to September 2021. Preoperative and intraoperative parameters, in addition to postoperative outcomes, were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent transurethral enucleation of the prostate with TFL, while 62 had MOSESTM HoLEP. No statistically significant difference in preoperative characteristics was observed between the groups. Patients in the TFL group had longer median enucleation, hemostasis, and morcellation times (p < 0.001) than those in the MOSESTM cohort. The longer morcellation time of TFL is mostly related to less visibility. The postoperative outcomes IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and post void residual (PVR), were comparable between the groups at 1, 3 and 6 months. The incidence of urge urinary incontinence (p = 0.79), stress urinary incontinence (p = 0.97), and hospital readmission rates (p = 0.1) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A satisfactory safety and efficacy profile with comparable postoperative outcomes was demonstrated for both techniques; though, MOSESTM technology was superior to TFL in terms of shorter overall operative time.

Minimally invasive simple prostatectomy: Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopy. A comparative study

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) is a novel surgical procedure for the management of obstructive symptoms caused by enlarged prostate glands. Before the introduction of minimally invasive techniques, the standard approach was the open simple prostatectomy (OSP). The aim of our study was to compare intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of robotic (RASP) and laparoscopic (LSP) simple prostatectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent minimally invasive simple prostatectomy at the Urological Department of Portogruaro Hospital, Portogruaro, and at the Urological Department of "San Bassiano" Hospital, in Bassano del Grappa, from March 2015 to December 2020. Data collected from medical records included age, body mass index, prostate volume, operative time, preoperative International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS), postoperative IPSS, time with drainage, blood transfusion, intraoperative complications, perioperative complications and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted (n = 25) and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (n = 25) were performed with a transvesical approach. No significant differences were observed regarding baseline characteristics, body mass index, prostate volume and IPSS. Operative time was lower in the laparoscopic group (122 min vs 139 min) (p = 0.024), while hospital stay was lower in the robotic group (4 days vs 6 days) (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy is a safe technique with results comparable to laparoscopic simple prostatectomy, encompassing the advantage of a shorter hospitalization. Considering the costs and the limited availability of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy, laparoscopic simple prostatectomy is a valid and safe alternative for experienced surgeons.