A prospective, randomized comparison of a 1940 nm and a 2013 nm thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser device for Thulium VapoEnucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP): First results

The safety and efficacy of five surgical treatments in prostate enucleation: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of our study was to investigate the comparative outcomes of five different energy types on surgical efficacy and postoperative recovery in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia.

METHODS

The literature was systematically reviewed on December 1st, 2023, encompassing studies retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases that incorporated clinical studies of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), Thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP), transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate (PKEP), diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) and thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in the treatment of prostatic hyperplasia. Two independent reviewers extracted study data and conducted quality assessments using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Network meta-analysis (NMA) was employed to indirectly analyze the outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) techniques.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 38 studies, comprising 21 non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) and 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), incorporating five distinct techniques: holmium laser, Thulium:YAG laser, bipolar plasma, diode laser and thulium fiber laser. In comparing treatment durations, ThuLEP and HoLEP had shorter overall hospital stays than PKEP, while the enucleation time of ThuLEP and HoLEP was shorter than that of ThuFLEP. Moreover, the enucleation tissue weight of both thulium fiber laser and holmium laser was heavier than bipolar plasma. However, the analysis did not reveal any statistically significant variation in complications among the various types of enucleation. In postoperative follow-up, the IPSS at 3 months post-operation was superior in the Thulium:YAG laser group compared to the holmium laser group. The thulium fiber laser technique demonstrated significant advantages over other enucleation methods in terms of QoL and PVR at 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Theoretical properties may vary among different energy sources; however, there are no discernible clinical differences in operation-related parameters, postoperative complications, and postoperative follow-up. Therefore, the choice of laser does not significantly impact the outcome. However, due to the limited number of included studies, future research should focus on larger sample sizes and multicenter investigations to further validate the findings of this study.

Thirty versus 60-Watt thulium laser enucleation of prostate: Toward the development of low-power anatomical enucleation of the prostate

Introduction

We aimed to study whether using 30 W versus 60 W thulium enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) would affect postoperative outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Materials and Methods

We prospectively identified male patients with moderate or severe lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH. We randomized patients into 30 W (Group 1) or 60 W (Group 2) thulium yag laser with a 550 μm laser fiber and a 26 Fr continuous flow resectoscope. We collected data related to prostate size, enucleation time, morcellation time, laser time, perioperative complications, and 1-year functional outcomes.

Results

A total of 120 patients were included, with a mean age of 67 years and a mean prostate size of 105 g. The preoperative characteristics were similar across both groups. The mean operative time was shorter in the 60 W group, 74 ± 27 vs. 91 ± 33 min in the 30 W group (P = 0.001), and the mean laser time was 55 ± 20 in 60 W versus 71 ± 25 in 30 W (P = 0.0001). The mean hospital stay was 1 day in both groups and at 1-year follow-up; there was a similar improvement in mean Qmax and International Prostate Symptom Score symptom scores.

Discussion/Conclusion

Both 30 and 60 W ThuLEP provided a safe and comparable outcome with a relatively shorter operative time for the 60 W groups. Perhaps using a 30-W setting would be beneficial in the early learning curve or cases with more bleeding capsular perforators; besides, the financial benefit of manufacturing low-cost low-power devices that may help in the widespread of AEEP.

Peri- and post-operative outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP): a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate and assess outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA checklist. We searched the Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases. We included only randomised-controlled trials (RCT) comparing modifications of EEPs and assessed the risk of bias (RoB).

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included in the study. Overall, 1266 patients were treated with Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and 80 patients with thulium laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP). The operative time during pulse shape-modified HoLEP was shorter when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (MD 18.08 min, 95% CI 8.11-28.05 min, p = 0.0004). The decrease in haemoglobin was significantly lower for two-lobe HoLEP when compared to three-lobe HoLEP (MD 0.16 g/dl, 95% CI 0.22-0.1 g/dl, p < 0.00001). Virtual Basket (VB) HoLEP showed a smaller haemoglobin decrease when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (1.12 ± 1.78 vs. 2.54 ± 1.23 g/dl, p = 0.03). When directly comparing one- vs. two- vs. three-lobe HoLEP, surgical time (p < 0.001) and enucleation efficiency (p = 0.006) were significantly different and favouring one- and two-lobe HoLEP in the study with the largest patient population included. No significant differences for complications were observed; however, Clavien-Dindo IVa events were reported for two patients.

CONCLUSION

All variations of EEP improve symptoms and functional parameters with a low incidence of high-grade complications. One- and two-lobe approaches and pulse shape-modified HoLEP seem to be beneficial in terms of operative time and blood loss.

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.

Nomenclature in thulium laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: it's time to pull the rabbit out of the hat

We performed a narrative review with the focus on laser settings and surgical procedure with thulium laser. Our primary goal was to define the most valid settings of each surgical procedure to overcome the inconsistency about nomenclature of thulium surgery and to ensure comparability of future publications. A literature search of articles on thulium laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was conducted between 2009 and 2019. We proposed a new classification standard for laser settings and associated surgical procedure. Each article was analyzed and categorized as concordant or discordant referring to the new classification. In total, 74 papers were included in this narrative review. Overall, 43% and 42% of included studies reported discordant laser parameters and surgical description, respectively. Most of the studies on vaporization were categorized as discordant because they reported a medium/low laser setting instead of high power. Conversely, 93.3% of studies on enucleation were deemed as discordant for laser setting because they reported high power parameters instead of medium-low power setting. Most of the studies on laser enucleation and vapo/enucleation were considered discordant for surgical procedure since authors did not mention the use of mechanical vs. laser method for enucleation. The current literature lacks a uniform definition and standardization of the terminology of thulium laser settings and surgical techniques to guarantee comparability between different approaches. We found a huge heterogeneity in 10 years of surgery with thulium laser. We proposed a new classification of laser setting and procedural description for categorization of thulium laser surgery for BPH.

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.

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

After its introduction, transurethral anatomical enucleation of the prostate with Tm:YAG support (ThuLEP) has evolved as one of the standard techniques of transurethral anatomical endoscopic enucleations of the prostate. Growing evidence has proven ThuLEP as an alternative for the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic enlargement and has been acknowledged by the EAU Guidelines on Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction. The uniqueness of ThuLEP as a concept made it a blueprint for other laser and nonlaser enucleating techniques based on the emphasis on two principles: widely blunt anatomical dissection and demystification of energy sources as being secondary for transurethral enucleation. The original technique has been technically refined by the inventor and other working groups in the field. The evolutionary modifications followed the academic discourse on anatomical enucleation for measures to prevent early postoperative stress urinary incontinence and preservation of antegrade ejaculation. Variations of the original three-lobe dissection technique were introduced with two-lobe approach or en bloc dissection. The manuscript is accompanied by an instructional video and surgical atlas on the currently most commonly applied two-lobe technique.

A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach-Initial Results

OBJECTIVE

To assess the differences in the learning curve associated with different techniques of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups (30 patients in each): HoLEP, ThuFLEP or MEP. Inclusion criteria for the study included prostate volume <80 cc, IPSS > 20, or Qmax < 10. The EEPs were performed by 3 surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate. Assignment of surgeons to surgical technique was also randomized. None of the surgeons had prior experience in EEP.

RESULTS

ThuFLEP was slightly superior (with no significant difference [P > .05]) to HoLEP and MEP in terms of overall enucleation rate-1.0 g/min vs 0.8 g/min and 0.7 g/min, respectively. We observed similar enucleation rates at the initial stages of training (first 20 surgeries) with insignificant increase in ThuFLEP efficiency. At next 10 surgeries ThuFLEP and HoLEP efficiency were higher than of MEP (P < .001) without significant difference between techniques of laser EEP (P = .07).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate can be adopted safely and effectively within 30 surgeries if the technique is learned with a mentoring approach. EEP is shown to be safe and effective even in the initial stages of learning. Laser EEP (HoLEP, ThuFLEP) appears to lend itself to quicker adaptation compared MEP.

Pulsed and CW adjustable 1942 nm single-mode all-fiber Tm-doped fiber laser system for surgical laser soft tissue ablation applications

A surgical laser soft tissue ablation system based on an adjustable 1942 nm single-mode all-fiber Tm-doped fiber laser operating in pulsed or CW mode with nitrogen assistance is demonstrated. Ex vivo ablation on soft tissue targets such as muscle (chicken breast) and spinal cord (porcine) with intact dura are performed at different ablation conditions to examine the relationship between the system parameters and ablation outcomes. The maximum laser average power is 14.4 W, and its maximum peak power is 133.1 W with 21.3 μJ pulse energy. The maximum CW power density is 2.33 × 10⁶ W/cm² and the maximum pulsed peak power density is 2.16 × 10⁷ W/cm². The system parameters examined include the average laser power in CW or pulsed operation mode, gain-switching frequency, total ablation exposure time, and the input gas flow rate. The ablation effects were measured by microscopy and optical coherence tomography (OCT) to evaluate the ablation depth, superficial heat-affected zone diameter (HAZD) and charring diameter (CD). Our results conclude that the system parameters can be tailored to meet different clinical requirements such as ablation for soft tissue cutting or thermal coagulation for future applications of hemostasis.