Bipolar transurethral enucleation of prostate versus photoselective vaporization for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (>70 ml)

Predictors of Storage Symptom Improvement After Plasma Kinetic Enucleation of the Prostate

OBJECTIVE

To investigate which preoperative findings portend poor improvement in storage symptoms in patients undergoing plasma kinetic enucleation of prostate (PKEP).

METHODS

A single surgeon series of patients who had undergone PKEP with minimum 1 year follow up were evaluated. Patients were grouped into those with less than 33% improvement in storage symptoms (LIS) according to the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and those with greater than 33% improvement in storage symptoms (GIS). Pre and postoperative factors were evaluated, along with IPSS, storage symptoms percentage (the total from frequency, urgency and nocturia divided by the total IPSS), bother index, and post void residual (PVR) at 6 weeks, 4 months, and yearly.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-eight patients had a minimum 1 year of follow up and had completed the IPSS. IPSS and bother index improved significantly from preoperatively to all time points post operatively in both groups, but the difference was greater in the GIS group. Patients in the GIS group had significantly larger prostates, more prostatic ingrowth, higher preoperative PVR, and a higher overall IPSS compared to the LIS group. Those in the LIS group had a higher incidence of prior prostate surgery, and a higher BMI. However, storage symptom percentages were equal between the GIS and LIS groups at all time points.

CONCLUSION

Greater prostatic ingrowth, larger prostate volume, higher preoperative PVR volume, and a higher overall IPSS was associated with greater improvement in storage symptoms. Prior prostate surgery and higher BMI portend less improvement in storage symptoms.

Bipolar Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate: Is it a size-independent endoscopic treatment option for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia?

Background

Bipolar Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate (B-TUEP) is recommended as a first-choice treatment for benign prostatic obstruction in prostates >80 ml. Differently, B-TUEP is only considered as an alternative option after TURP for smaller prostates (30–80 ml). The aim of our study is to assess the relation between prostate size and surgical outcomes after B-TUEP.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of data collected from 172 patients submitted to B-TUEP. Patients were segregated according to tertiles of prostate volume (PV) (≤60 ml, 61–110 ml, >110 ml). For each group we evaluated enucleation efficacy (enucleated weight/enucleation time), complication rates, urinary and sexual function parameters. Functional and sexual parameters were compared between groups at baseline, 1 and 3 months follow up. Descriptive statistics and linear and logistic regression models tested the association between PV and postoperative complications/outcomes.

Results

Operative time and weight of enucleated adenomas increased along with prostate volumes (all p≤0.01). Enucleation efficacy was higher in men with PV >110 ml compared to other groups (p≤0.001). Length of hospital stay, catheterization time and rates of postoperative complications, such as transfusion and clot evacuation rates and bladder neck/urethral strictures, were comparable between groups. Urinary symptoms improved at 1-and 3-months in each group as compared to baseline evaluation (all p<0.01) but they did not differ according to PV. In each group maximum urinary flow and post-void residual volume significantly improved at 3 months compared to baseline (all p≤0.01), without differences according to PV. Sexual symptoms were similar between groups at each follow up assessment. At multivariable linear and logistic regression analysis, prostate volume was not associated with postoperative functional outcomes and complications. Conversely, patient’s comorbid status and antiplatelet/anticoagulation use were independently associated with postoperative complications.

Conclusion

According to our findings, B-TUEP should be considered a “size independent procedure” as it can provide symptom relief in men with prostates of all sizes with the same efficacy and safety profile.

A Modified Technique of Thulium Laser Enucleation for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia With Non-morcellator Approach

Background: Until recently, most enucleation techniques of the prostate were performed with the application of morcellator. We introduce a modified enucleation technique of thulium laser with non-morcellator approach, which is about incising and vaporizing remaining prostate tissue instead of a morcellator.

Methods: A retrospective evaluation of 223 patients undergoing ThuLEP from January 2014 to December 2015 was performed in our institution. One hundred five of the patients used morcellator while the other 118 used non-morcellator approach. All patients were assessed with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (Qol), ultrasonography, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), maximal urine flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR). We reassessed these parameters at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months after operation. Operative time, perioperative, and postoperative complications were also recorded.

Results: Significant improvement was noted in the IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR in both groups at the 12-month follow-up, and assessment showed no differences in these parameters between the two groups. Comparisons of the total operation time and enucleation time demonstrated no significant differences between the two groups. Our non-morcellator approach needed more time to incise and vaporize the enucleated tissue compared to morcellation when the prostate volume was about 40–80 ml (p < 0.05), while it showed a significant lower rate of superficial bladder injury than using morcellator (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in other complications between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Our modified technique is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of BPH avoiding the potential complications caused by morcellator.

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.

Lasers versus bipolar technology in the transurethral treatment of benign prostatic enlargement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

PURPOSE

To systematically review studies comparing the overall efficacy and safety of lasers and bipolar technology for the transurethral treatment of benign prostatic enlargement (BPE).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was completed in February 2018. Studies with comparative data between different lasers and bipolar technologies (enucleation or resection) were included in this review. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0, and subgroup analyses were also performed regarding the type of laser (holmium, thulium, green light and diode).

RESULTS

27 studies with 31 published articles (4382 patients) were selected for the meta-analysis. Compared with bipolar technology, lasers demonstrated shorter catheterization duration (standardized mean difference (SMD): 1.44; 95% CI 1.07-1.81; p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (SMD: 1.16; 95% CI 0.83-1.49; p < 0.001), and a smaller drop in hemoglobin (Hb) level (SMD: 0.86; 95% CI 0.47-1.26; p < 0.001). However, significant heterogeneity was detected in the studies and statistical significance was lost on sub-analyses. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between lasers and bipolar technology in the maximum flow rate (Qmax) and international prostate symptom score (IPSS) at a minimum of 3 months after treatment. Complications, including urethral stricture, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infection, re-catheterization and blood transfusion, did not significantly differ between lasers and bipolar technology.

CONCLUSION

Early efficacy and safety profiles were comparable between bipolar and laser treatments. Differences were observed in terms of smaller reduction in Hb, shorter catheterization duration and shorter hospital stay in favor of lasers. However, the smaller reduction in Hb, with lasers, did not translate into reduced transfusion requirements. Furthermore, there was significant heterogeneity in the studies and, in subgroup analyses, the differences were not statistically significant.