En Bloc enucleation with early apical release technique using MOSES (En Bloc MoLEP) vs. classic En Bloc HoLEP: a single arm study comparing intra- and postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to describe the technique and outcomes of En-Bloc MOSES laser enucleation of the prostate (En-Bloc MoLEP) with early apical release comparing it to En-Bloc HoLEP (non-MOSES).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a single-arm prospective study, using a historical control. n = 80 patients were enrolled to the En Bloc MoLEP group and compared to a retrospective group of n = 137 patients treated by En Bloc HoLEP (non-MOSES), in total n = 217 patients.

RESULTS

En-Bloc MoLEP, showed to significantly improve the surgical time by 32% compared to non-MOSES HoLEP (32.16 ± 14.46 min, 47.58 ± 21.32, respectively; P = 0.003). Enucleation time, ablation rate and hemostasis time were also significantly improved (P < 0.001, for all three parameters). Enucleation time was 22.10 ± 9.27 min and 31.46 ± 14.85 min (P < 0.001), ablation rate 4.11 ± 2.41 and 2.54 ± 1.31 gr/min (P < 0.001), Hemostasis time 3.01 ± 2.50 and 8.35 ± 5.38 min (P < 0.001), for En Bloc MoLEP and En Bloc HoLEP, respectively. Q-max, PVR, PSA and IPSS showed significant improvement, however, at 12 months no significant differences were observed comparing both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

En-Bloc MoLEP was significantly better than En-Bloc HoLEP in terms of surgical time, enucleation time, ablation rate and hemostasis time. However, large comparative RCT with long-term follow-up are needed.

[En bloc MoLEP (MOSES HoLEP) with early apical dissection and preservation of the sphincter's mucosa. Surgical technique and technology developments that allow a new paradigm of endoscopic prostate enucleation]

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate was first described by Hiraoka in 1986, using a monopolar resectoscope. His contribution was largely ignored until Gilling and Fraundorfer published their three-lobe enucleation technique with the Holmium laser in 1998 ,that ended establishing itself as a reliable option for the treatment of HBP, backed by ample scientific evidence. Later on, enucleation performed with other lasers, as well as bipolar energy, have shown concordance in their clinical results. As a result, the term AEEP (anatomic endoscopic enucleation of the prostate) emerged to encompass all these techniques. During the last few years there have been significant advances in two areas: first, technology, with the development of pulse modulation for Holmium generators (MOSES) as well as high-speed morcellators. Second, the development of new surgical techniques that recognize the importance of the early release of the sphincter from the apex of the adenoma during the operation as well as the careful preservation of the external sphincter's mucosa, to avoid early stress incontinence. In this paper,we review the recent evolution of both technology and surgical technique. AEEP has been risen to a new level, reducing operative time significantly, usually under one hour, and radically reducing the incidence of early temporary stress incontinence, and maybe also facilitating the learning curve of AEEP.

[Standarization of PCNL reporting: Comparative methodology.]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a new renal lithiasis classification on the stone free rate. The new system would allow standarization of comparison between different series of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients undergoing NPCL between November 2011 and November 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The stones were classified as simple (pelvic and/or calyceal stones that required a single access and/or use of a rigid nephroscope), complex (required the use of more than one percutaneous access and/or flexible instruments and/or combined access) and extremely complex (complete staghorn stones or anatomical alterations), according to the Ibarluzea-Llanes classification. Other variables analyzed were age, sex, diabetes, hypertension or taking anticoagulants, stones composition, placement of postoperative nephrostomy and surgical time. We performed a univariate and multivariate analysis using the chi-square or Fisher test and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine procedures were included in 57 patients with a mean age of 51 years (13-84) and a mean follow-up time of 30 months. The stone free rate was 86%, 75% and 55% for a simple, complex or extremely complex stone, both at three months and a year. Only the stone type was associated with a worse stone free rate (p 0.03) with RR of 2.5 for a 95% CI.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ibarluzea-Llanes clasification could be used as a new system for standarization of PCNL outcomes reporting.