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

Comparison of HoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) and Thulium fibre laser enucleation of prostate (ThuFLEP) by performing propensity score matched analysis (PSM).

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the patients who underwent HoLEP (Group 1, n = 696), ThuLEP (Group 2, n = 146) and ThuFLEP (Group 3, n = 193) surgery because of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). A 1:1:1 HoLEP: ThuLEP: ThuFLEP group matching was performed using PSM analysis. Perioperative, postoperative functional outcomes and complications were analysed and compared.

RESULTS

We observed significant improvement in functional parameters regarding IPSS, Qmax, PVR and quality of life in all groups compared to baseline values at the 1st, 6th and 12th postoperative months. There was no significant difference between different laser types in terms of urge (UUI) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 1st postoperative month. In all three groups, no patient had postoperative SUI or UUI at 6th and 12th postoperative months. In addition, no significant difference was observed between laser types in terms of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

HoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP are safe and effective LEP methods with improvement in functional parameters and low complication rates. Similar results in terms of functional outcomes and complications clearly show that these surgeries are alternatives to each other for the patients with BPO. Experts' opinions, practices and enucleation techniques should also be taken into consideration when choosing a laser for BPO surgery.

Reoperation after surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review

Context

Surgical treatment is important for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) management, but there are few reviews of the risks of reoperation.

Objective

To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the reoperation rates of surgical treatment for LUTS in accordance with current recommendations and guidelines.

Evidence acquisition

Eligible studies published up to July 2023, were searched for in the PubMed® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA) databases. STATA® (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled incidences (PIs) of reoperation and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Evidence synthesis

A total of 119 studies with 130,106 patients were included. The reoperation rate of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 4.0%, 5.0%, 6.0%, and 7.7%, respectively. The reoperation rate of plasma kinetic loop resection of the prostate (PKRP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.5%, 3.6%, 5.7%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.4%, 3.3%, 5.4%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.3%, 4.1%, 6.7%, and 7.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of surgery with AquaBeam® at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.6%, 3.1%, 3.0%, and 4.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 12.2%, 20.0%, 26.4%, and 23.8%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 9.9%, 19.9%, 23.3%, and 31.2%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) at 5 years was 13.4%. The reoperation rate of open prostatectomy (OP) at 1 and 5 years was 1.3% and 4.4%, respectively. The reoperation rate of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) at 1, 2, and 5 years was 3.7%, 7.7%, and 8.4%, respectively.

Conclusion

Our results summarized the reoperation rates of 10 surgical procedures over follow-up durations of 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, which could provide reference for urologists and LUTS patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023445780.

The causal relationship between sarcopenic obesity factors and benign prostate hyperplasia

Background

Both benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and sarcopenic obesity (SO) are common conditions among older adult/adults males. The prevalent lifestyle associated with SO is a significant risk factor for the development of BPH. Therefore, we investigated the causal relationship between SO factors and BPH.

Method

The instrumental variables for SO factors were selected using the inverse variance-weighted method, which served as the primary approach for Mendelian randomization analysis to assess the causal effect based on summary data derived from genome-wide association studies of BPH.

Result

The increase in BMR (OR = 1.248; 95% CI = (1.087, 1.432); P = 0.002) and ALM (OR = 1.126; 95% CI = (1.032, 1.228); P = 0.008) was found to be associated with an elevated risk of BPH. However, no genetic causality between fat-free mass distribution, muscle mass distribution, and BPH was observed.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that a genetic causal association between BMR, ALM and BPH. BMR and ALM are risk factors for BPH. The decrease in BMR and ALM signified the onset and progression of SO, thus SO is a protective factor for BPH.

Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy versus other treatment modalities for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6500 cases

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend simple prostatectomy or endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) as treatment of choice for bladder prostatic obstruction (BPO) caused by large prostate glands. We aimed to provide a wide-ranging analysis of the currently available evidence, comparing safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) versus open simple prostatectomy (OSP), laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), and laser EEP.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for retrospective and prospective studies comparing RASP to OSP or LSP or laser EEP (HoLEP/ThuLEP). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations were followed to design the search strategies, selection criteria, and evidence report. A meta-analysis evaluated perioperative safety and effectiveness outcomes. The weighted mean difference and risk ratio were used to compare continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for RCT article assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

15 studies, including 6659 patients, were selected for meta-analysis: 13 observational studies, 1 non-randomized prospective study, and 1 randomized controlled trial. RASP was associated with statistically significant longer operative time (OT) and lower postoperative complication rate, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and transfusion rate (TR) compared to OSP. LSP showed longer LOS and lower postoperative SHIM score, with no difference in OT, EBL, and complications. Compared to laser EEP, RASP presented longer LOS and catheterization time and higher TR. ThuLEP presented shorter OT than RASP. No difference were found in functional outcomes between groups both subjectively (IPSS, QoL) and objectively (Qmax, PVR).

CONCLUSION

RASP has become a size-independent treatment for the management of BPO caused by a large prostate gland. It can duplicate the functional outcomes of OSP while offering a better safety profile. When compared to LSP, the latter still stands as a valid lower-cost option, but it requires solid laparoscopic skill sets and therefore it is unlikely to spread on larger scale. When compared to laser EEP, RASP offers a shorter learning curve, but it still suffers from longer catheterization time and LOS.

Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy versus robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials

Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) are important approaches for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), though it is still unclear which is superior. This study aimed to perform a pooled analysis to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of LSP and RASP. We systematically searched the databases of Science, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, comparing LSP to RASP. The principal outcomes included perioperative, functional and complications variables. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of dichotomous and continuous variables. Five comparative trials involving 1928 patients were included. RASP demonstrated a shorter length of hospital stay compared to LSP (WMD 1.20 days, 95% CI 0.09, 2.32; p = 0.03). However, there was no difference between the two groups regarding operative time, estimated blood loss, catheterization time and complications. Moreover, RASP had a higher maximum flow rate (Q_max) (WMD - 2.15 mL/s, 95% CI - 3.75, - 0.55; p = 0.0009) and comparable international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and sexual health inventory (SHIM) in men with LSP. The results of this study demonstrated that RASP offered comparable efficacy and safety to LSP, while maintaining a superior perioperative and functional profile. However, treatment selection should also be based on the availability and experience of the operator.