No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Mechanical based dissection versus laser energy based dissection during thulium laser enucleation of a large prostate: A prospective randomized analysis
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Introduction
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of low-power thulium (30 W) and the duration necessary to eliminate adenomas at the level of the surgical capsule, as well as its impact on postoperative urinary and sexual function.
Material and methods
Patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), who had ThuLEP between December 2019 and March 2022 and had a prostate size >80 mL and had not responded to the medication therapy, were included. The prostate size, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), enucleation and morcellation times, postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IEFF-5) records at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were among the information gathered.
Results
The average age of the 80 patients who received ThuLEP was 66.7 ±6.4 years, with a mean prostate volume of 112.65 ±19.3 mL. The mean duration for enucleation was 71 ±11 min. At the initial follow-up after one month, the mean IPSS was 8.012 ±1.78 mL and the mean Qmax enhancement was 30.16 ±4 mL s⁻¹. In contrast to baseline, our findings demonstrated a substantial improvement in postoperative urgency and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) (p = 0.005) but no meaningful variation in IIEF-5 score at the 12-month follow-up.
Conclusions
Low-power ThuLEP is worthwhile for therapeutic use because it effectively treats patients with large prostates with satisfactory urinary and sexual effects.
Clinical trials .gov ID: NCT05494944
Introduction
The Thulium fiber laser (TFL) is a new device that in contrast to the other solid-state YAG-based lasers takes a different approach to pulse formation allowing for two different modes: in the QCW (quasi-continuous wave) function, TFL is convenient for soft tissue surgery and in the SP (Superpulsed) mode it is highly effective in lithotripsy. Thus, unlike the other thulium lasers (Tm : YAG), TFL can be used in a wide range of surgical procedures.
Materials and Methods
We conducted a systematic search in 3 databases: Medline, Scopus and Cochrane library. All original articles (both preclinical and clinical) on TFL application in soft tissue surgery were included in data analysis.
Results
In terms of its cutting properties, QCW TFL is not inferior to the other thulium lasers, and in fact allows for decreased carbonization (due to lower heat production) compared to continuous lasers (e.g. Tm : YAG). It has been used successfully in endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) and in en bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT). The efficacy and safety of this laser is comparable to TURP and simple prostatectomy, but the recovery period is shorter and the learning curve is slightly superior to other endoscopic procedures. There are no significant differences between TFL and Ho : YAG in terms of efficacy and safety during EEP. Unfortunately, there are no clinical studies that analyse the efficacy and safety of SP TFL in EEP or ERBT.
Conclusion
TFL is a safe and effective tool for BPH surgery. In terms of parameters, it is in no way inferior to Tm : YAG or Ho : YAG during EEP. However, TFL surpasses these lasers in terms of usability and serviceability. These advantages are likely to render it more popular over time.
Background
Several studies described post-operative irritative symptoms after laser enucleation of prostate, sometimes associated with urge incontinence, probably linked to laser-induced prostatic capsule irritation, and potential for lower urinary tract infections We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a suppository based on Phenolmicin P3 and Bosexil (Mictalase®) in control of irritative symptoms in patients undergoing thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP).
Methods
In this single-center, prospective, randomized, open label, phase-III study, patients with indication to ThuLEP were enrolled (Dec2019–Feb2021—Institutional ethics committee STS CE Lazio approval no.1/N-726—ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05130918). The report conformed to CONSORT 2010 guidelines. Eligible patients were 1:1 randomized. Randomization defined Group A: patients who were administered Mictalase® suppositories twice a day for 5 days, then once a day for other 10 days; Group B: patients who did not receive Mictalase® (“controls”). Study endpoints were evaluated at 15 and 30 days postoperation. Primary endpoint included evaluation of effects of the suppository on irritative symptoms by administering IPSS + QoL questionnaire. Secondary endpoint included evaluation of effects on urinary tract infections by performance of urinalysis with urine culture.
Results
111 patients were randomized: 56 in Group A received Mictalase®. Baseline and perioperative data were comparable. At 15-days, no significant differences were found in terms of IPSS + QoL scores and urinalysis parameters. A significant difference in the rate of positive urine cultures favored Group A ( p = 0.04). At 30-days follow-up, significant differences were found in median IPSS score (6 [IQR 3–11] versus 10 [5–13], Group A vs B, respectively, p = 0.02). Urinalysis parameters and rate of positive urine cultures were not significantly different.
Conclusions
The present randomized trial investigated the efficacy of Mictalase® in control of irritative symptoms and prevention of lower urinary tract infections in patients undergoing ThuLEP. IPSS improvement 30-days postoperation was more pronounced in patients who received Mictalase®. Lower rate of positive urine culture favored Mictalase® group 15-days postoperatively.
Trial registration
The clinical trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on November 23rd, 2021—Registration number NCT05130918.
Purpose
To objectively determine whether there is potential thermal tissue damage during Tm:YAG laser-based LUTS treatment.
Methods
Our experimental model was comprised of a prostatic resection trainer placed in a 37 °C water bath. In a hollowed-out central area simulating the urethral lumen, we placed a RigiFib 800 fibre, irrigation inflow regulated with a digital pump, and a type K thermocouple. A second thermocouple was inserted 0.5/1 cm adjacently and protected with an aluminum barrier to prevent it from urethral fluid. We investigated continuous and intermittent 120 W and 80 W laser application with various irrigation rates in eight measurement sessions lasting up to 14 min. Thermal measurements were recorded continuously and in real-time using MatLab. All experiments were repeated five times to balance out variations.
Results
Continuous laser application at 120 W and 125 ml/min caused a urethral ∆T of ~ 15 K and a parenchymal temperature increase of up to 7 K. With 50 ml/min irrigation, a urethral and parenchymal ∆T of 30 K and 15 K were reached, respectively. Subsequently and in absence of laser application, prostatic parenchyma needed over 16 min to reach baseline body temperature. At 80 W lower temperature increases were reached compared to similar irrigation but higher power.
Conclusions
We showed that potentially harming temperatures can be reached, especially during high laser power and low irrigation. The heat generation can also be conveyed to the prostate parenchyma and deeper structures, potentially affecting the neurovascular bundles. Further clinical studies with intracorporal temperature measurement are necessary to further investigate this potentially harming surgical adverse effect.
Purpose
The objective of this study is to evaluate the laser-tissue effects of laser radiation emitted by a newly developed high frequency pulsed Tm:YAG laser in comparison to the continuous wave Tm:YAG laser and the pulsed Ho:YAG laser.
Methods
Ex-vivo experiments were performed on freshly slaughtered porcine kidneys in a physiological saline solution. Experiments were performed using two different laser devices in different settings: A Tm:YAG laser was operated in a pulsed mode up to 300 Hz and in a continuous wave (CW) mode. Results were compared with a 100 W standard pulsed Ho:YAG laser system. Comparative tissue experiments were performed at 5 W, 40 W and 80 W. The incision depth and the laser damage zone were measured under a microscope using a calibrated ocular scale.
Results
Increased laser power resulted in increased incision depth and increased laser damage zone for all investigated lasers in this set-up. The Ho:YAG created the largest combined tissue effect at the 5 W power setting and seems to be the least controllable laser at low power for soft tissue incisions. The CW Tm:YAG did not incise at all at 5 W, but created the largest laser damage zone. For the new pulsed Tm:YAG laser the tissue effect grew evenly with increasing power.
Conclusion
Among the investigated laser systems in this setting the pulsed Tm:YAG laser shows the most controllable behavior, insofar as both the incision depth and the laser damage zone increase evenly with increasing laser power.
Objectives
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of combined top and down low power thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP).
Patients and methods
Between May 2017 and May 2019, after institutional board review approval, successfully consented patients underwent combined top and down low power ThuLEP. We used a 30 -W Thulium 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, perioperative complications, and early outcomes.
Results
Sixty patients underwent combined Top and down low power ThuLEP with mean age 67 ± 8. Acute urine retention was the main indication for surgery in 22% of patients, while the remaining had mean IPPS score 26 ± 3. The mean prostate volume was 102 ± 25 ml and the mean Qmax was 6 ± 2 ml/sec. Mean operative time was 103 ± 25 min, while; mean enucleation time was 80 ± 12 min, and mean morcellation time was 17 ± 6 min. The mean enucleated prostate volume was 73 ± 16 g and the mean hemoglobin drop was 1 ± 0.2 mg/dl. There was no need for blood transfusion and the mean hospital stay was 18 ± 4 h and catheters were removed on discharge. The 1st visit was at one month, and we observed significant mean Qmax improvement18 ± 5 ml/s. Our results showed no significant change of IIEF-5 score at 12-month follow-up compared to baseline.
Conclusion
Low-power Thulium enucleation with a combined top and down technique provided a safe and efficacious outcome, that may reduce strenuous wrist flexion and eliminate the need for high-power Thulium laser device.
Purpose
HoLEP represents an excellent treatment option for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Recently, ‘en bloc’ techniques resulting in improved visualization, shorter surgical times, and easier recognition of the dissection plane have been described. In this paper we describe the ‘En bloc’ HoLEP technique with early apical release.
Materials and methods
Between January 2015 and March 2017, 137 consecutive patients were subjected to this technique by a single surgeon. The following parameters were measured pre- and post-procedure: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual urine (PVR) and PSA. Complications were recorded.
Results
Mean (SD; range) age was 66 years (8.0; 51–84), mean PSA was 4.8 ng/ml (7.0; 0.3–70), mean prostate volume was 75.63 ml (42.1; 37–253), mean volume of prostatic tissue removed was 65.9 ml (35.8; 30–217). Mean surgical duration was 47.58 min (21.3; 15–120 min): enucleation 31.5 min (14.9; 5–80 min), morcellating 6.9 min (6.6; 1–60 min). Mean hospitalization duration was 1.2 days (range 1–3), mean catheterization time was 1.2 days (range 1–5). The rate of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) was 5.8, 1.5 and 0.7% at 1, 3, and 6 months post-operation, respectively. Compared to pre-operative values, IPSS, Qmax, and PVR showed significant improvements at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following the operation (p < 0.05).
Conclusions
‘En Bloc’ HoLEP with early apical release is a safe technique that allows for easier recognition of the surgical plane and preserves the external sphincter’s mucosa to provide low rates of post-operative stress incontinence and significant functional results.
This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between transurethral thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and transurethral thulium laser resection of the prostate (ThuLRP) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). From May 2014 to August 2015, 212 patients underwent ThuLRP and 188 patients underwent ThuLEP. The ThuLEP group was further divided into two subgroups according to the ways the prostate was taken out. The perioperative parameters were recorded and analyzed. The international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QoL) score, maximum flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) in both groups were estimated and compared 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of irrigated time, irrigated volume, catheterization time, and hospital stay. However, the significantly lower hemoglobin drop was observed in the ThuLRP group compared with the ThuLEP group. The ThuLEP group with a morcellator required a shorter operation time for patients with large prostate volume (> 60 mL) compared with the ThuLRP and ThuLEP groups without a morcellator. During 12 months of follow-up, IPSS, Qmax, QoL, and PVR improved significantly without significant differences between the groups. No severe complications were reported; however, the occurrence of transient urge incontinence was higher after ThuLEP compared with ThuLRP, and the proportion of urinary tract infection after surgery was higher in ThuLRP than in ThuLEP. ThuLRP and ThuLEP are safe and efficient for treating patients with symptomatic BPH. ThuLRP offers advantages in terms of minimal blood loss.
Objectives
To report our experience with the emerging technique of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) for the treatment for prostate hyperplasia.
Patients and methods
Our inclusion criteria were an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of >15 and a quality-of-life (QoL) score of >3 in patients with confirmed bladder outflow obstruction, no longer responsive to medical therapy, with a significant post-void residual urine volume (PVR; >100 mL), with or without recurrent urinary tract infection and/or acute urinary retention. Patients with neurogenic bladder, urethral strictures, bladder stones, and previously failed transurethral prostate surgery were excluded.
Results
In all, 139 men were included in the study. The mean age was 67.8 years. The IPSS and QoL score improved by 17.6 and 2.6, respectively. The flow rate increased from a mean of 9.6 mL to 31.2 mL and the PVR decreased from a mean of 131 mL to 30 mL. On univariate and multivariate analyses, operating time was a predictive factor for haemoglobin drop during the operation. Heparin prophylaxis was the only risk factor identified for postoperative bleeding. Two patients (0.01%) required blood transfusion. One patient (0.007%) required re-intervention for bleeding control, and two patients developed urethral and bladder neck strictures (0.01%).
Conclusion
ThuLEP is safe and reproducible. Whilst it significantly reduces intraoperative bleeding as compared to transurethral resection of the prostate, operating time and perioperative heparin prophylaxis may still lead to a Hb drop and constitute a risk factor for postoperative bleeding. Therefore, a potential risk of deep vein thrombosis requiring heparin prophylaxis should be carefully considered and balanced with the expected clinical benefit of the operation.
Objective:
To evaluate the safety and feasibility of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).
Methods:
From March 2013 to August 2016, we retrospectively analyzed 1124 benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients undergoing HoLEP and divided into four groups: 56 cases receiving DAPT therapy (group A); 72 patients treated with continuous single antiplatelet (AP) therapy (group B); 41 patients treated with single AP therapy but intermittent during preoperative time (group C) and 955 cases had no AP therapy (group D). Patients' baseline characteristics, 1-year clinical outcomes, rates of postoperative bleeding and complications were presented in this study.
Results:
All patients received successful operations and no severe postoperative complications occurred. Only one patient in Group D required transfusion. The enucleation time and catheterization time for the DAPT patients were the longest among four groups (p < 0.001, respectively). The overall complications rates within 30 days were 23.2% (13/56) in Group A, 27.8% (20/72) in Group B, 19.5% (8/41) in Group C, and 27.0% (258/955) in Group D, respectively (p = 0.678). By the 12 months, the international prostate symptom scores (IPSS), quality of life scores (QOL) and residual urine volume (RUV) in all groups have been significantly improved.
Conclusion:
HoLEP in patients receiving DAPT after coronary artery stunting showed similar results to those achieved in patients receiving single AP therapy or non-AP therapy. It can be a good option, which the urologists can offer to those patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia refractory to medical treatment.
Context: Thulium LASER is fast emerging as a safe and effective modality for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Still, compared to holmium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) the number of institutes all over the world using Thulium LASER are limited. This is our effort to bring the statistical facts about the safety and effectivity of Thulium LASER.
Aims: To study the efficacy of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP).
Settings and Design: All patients in the stipulated period were documented for all parameters and were evaluated. The results were tabulated.
Subjects and Materials: (1) Two hundred and thirty-six patients with symptomatic BPH were treated with ThuLEP between March 2010 and September 2014 at our institute by a single surgeon. (2) The inclusion criteria were maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) 15 or acute retention of urine with the failure of catheter trial or Acute retention of urine with prior history of severe bladder outlet obstruction. (3) Patients evaluated by: Digital rectal examination, uroflowmetry, IPSS, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), blood and urine routine tests, abdominal usage with trains rectal ultrasonography (TRUS), TRUS guided biopsies.
Statistical Analysis Used: Not used.
Results: (1) ThuLEP was a highly effective procedure as compared to all other procedures like HOLEP, TURP in terms of catheterization time, hospital stay, and drop in hemoglobin (Hb). (2) Catheterization time: 25.22 h (224 patients within 24 h and 12 patients within 48 h). (3) Hospital stay: 24–36 h 218 patients (92.3%), 36–48 h 18 patients (7.6%). (4) Drop in Hb: 0.8 ± 0.42 g/dl. (5) Average operative time: 56.91 min.
Conclusions: Thulium LASER is a safe and highly effective LASER in terms of blood loss, speed of tissue resection, drop in serum PSA, and versatility of prostatic resection.
Background:
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is currently considered a safe and effective therapeutic option for the treatment of adenomas of any size. Being considered difficult to learn and to teach, HoLEP is not as diffused as it would deserve. In 2011, we started performing HoLEP reproducing the traditional Gilling's technique. Case after case, we introduced alterations in the surgical approach, trying to overcome our difficulties and minimize our learning curve.
Materials and methods:
We present a detailed step-by-step description of our modified HoLEP technique, developed in Torino, Italy, which we called en-bloc no-touch.
Results:
The main steps of the en-bloc no-touch enucleation phase include: (1) the identification of the correct plane between adenoma and capsule only once, at the apex of the left lobe laterally to the veru montanum, extending the incision retrogradely towards the bladder at 5 o'clock; (2) the en-bloc enucleation of a horseshoe-like adenoma, sparing the 7 and 12 o'clock incisions; (3) the use of the beak of the endoscope, gently raising up the lobe from the capsular plane and creating a dihedral angle, crossed by connective bundles put in tension by this movement; and (4) the gradual no-touch lasing of such fibres, exploiting the effects of the plasma bubble at the tip of laser fibre, with no direct energy supply to the capsule.
Conclusions:
In our experience, the en-bloc no-touch technique has the potential to ease some difficult intraoperative steps and to improve the learning curve of HoLEP.
Objective:
To compare and evaluate the safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and simple prostatectomy for large prostate burdens, as discussion and debate continue about the optimal surgical intervention for this common pathology.
Materials and methods:
A systematic search was conducted for studies comparing HoLEP with simple prostatectomy [open (OP), robot-assisted, laparoscopic] using a sensitive strategy and in accordance with Cochrane collaboration guidelines. Primary parameters of interest were objective measurements including maximum urinary flow rate (Q max) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR), and subjective outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes of interest included volume of tissue retrieved, catheterisation time, hospital stay, blood loss and serum sodium decrease. Data on baseline characteristics and complications were also collected. Where possible, comparable data were combined and meta-analysis was conducted.
Results:
In all, 310 articles were identified and after screening abstracts (114) and full manuscripts (14), three randomised studies (263 patients) were included, which met our pre-defined inclusion criteria. All these compared HoLEP with OP. The mean transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume was 113.9 mL in the HoLEP group and 119.4 mL in the OP group. There was no statistically significant difference in Q max, PVR, IPSS and QoL at 12 and 24 months between the two interventions. OP was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.01) and greater tissue retrieved (P < 0.001). However, with HoLEP there was significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), patients had a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.03), and were catheterised for significantly fewer hours (P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the total number of complications recorded amongst HoLEP and OP (P = 0.80).
Conclusion:
The results of the meta-analysis have shown that HoLEP and OP possess similar overall efficacy profiles for both objective and subjective disease status outcome measures. This review shows these improvements persist to at least the 24 month follow-up point. Further randomised studies are warranted to fully determine the optimal surgical intervention for large prostate burdens.
Purpose
The thulium laser is the most recently introduced technology for the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Until recently, most thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) was performed by use of the three-lobe technique. We introduce a novel one-lobe enucleation technique for ThuLEP called the "All-in-One" technique. We report our initial experiences here.
Materials and Methods
From June 2013 to May 2014, a total of 47 patients underwent the All-in-One technique of ThuLEP for symptomatic BPH performed by a single surgeon. All patients were assessed with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), transrectal ultrasonography, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), maximal urine flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) before and 1 month after surgery. We reassessed IPSS, Qmax, and PVR 3 months after surgery. To assess the efficacy of the All-in-One technique, we checked the PSA reduction ratio, transitional zone volume reduction ratio, and enucleation failure rate.
Results
The mean operative time was 82.1±33.3 minutes. The mean enucleation time and morcellation time were 52.7±21.7 minutes and 8.2±7.0 minutes, respectively. The mean resected tissue weight and decrease in hemoglobin were 36.9±24.6 g and 0.4±0.8 g/dL, respectively. All perioperative parameters showed significant improvement (p<0.05). No major complications were observed. The PSA reduction ratio, transitional zone volume reduction ratio, and enucleation failure rate were 0.81, 0.92, and 4.3%, respectively.
Conclusions
The All-in-One technique of ThuLEP showed efficacy and effectiveness comparable to that of other techniques. We expect that this new technique could reduce the operation time and the bleeding and improve the effectiveness of enucleation.
Background
The aim of this study was to determine the learning curve for thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) for two surgeons with different levels of urological endoscopic experience.
Methods
From June 2012 to August 2013, ThuLEP was performed on 100 patients in our institution. We present the results of a prospective evaluation during which we analyzed data related to the learning curves for two surgeons of different levels of experience.
Results
The prostatic adenoma volumes ranged from 30 to 130 mL (average 61.2 mL). Surgeons A and B performed 48 and 52 operations, respectively. Six months after surgery, all patients were evaluated with the International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire, uroflowmetry, and prostate-specific antigen test. Introduced in 2010, ThuLEP consists of blunt enucleation of the prostatic apex and lobes using the sheath of the resectoscope. This maneuver allows clearer visualization of the enucleation plane and precise identification of the prostatic capsule. These conditions permit total resection of the prostatic adenoma and coagulation of small penetrating vessels, thereby reducing the laser emission time. Most of the complications in this series were encountered during morcellation, which in some cases was performed under poor vision because of venous bleeding due to surgical perforation of the capsule during enucleation.
Conclusions
Based on this analysis, we concluded that it is feasible for laser-naive urologists with endoscopic experience to learn to perform ThuLEP without tutoring. Those statements still require further validation in larger multicentric study cohort by several surgeon. The main novelty during the learning process was the use of a simulator that faithfully reproduced all of the surgical steps in prostates of various shapes and volumes.
Objective:
To evaluate perioperative parameters, clinical outcomes, and the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in surgeons with experience in thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP).
Materials and methods:
The learning curves for HoLEP of the first 50 consecutive patients of two surgeons experienced in ThuLEP were analyzed. In addition, demographic parameters, clini¬cal outcomes and adverse events were evaluated.
Results:
Mean operation time was 70.9 + 29.7 min (SD) (Surgeon 1) and 74.4 + 35.4 min (Surgeon 2), the mean enucleation efficiency was 1.5 + 0.6 g/min (Surgeon 1) and 1.5 + 0.7 g/min (Surgeon 2). The hemoglobin loss was 0.9 + 0.8 g/dl and 0.8 + 0.8 g/dl. For both surgeons, there was a significant learning curve in enucleation efficiency within the first 50 cases (Surgeon 1: p = .034, Surgeon 2: p = .006, both: p = .0003, Spearman's ρ = .351). Both surgeons started with an enucleation efficiency of around 1g/min in their first 10 cases. No significant correlation between hemoglobin loss and experience could be found (p = .823, ρ = .025). While there was no significant learning curve for morcellation efficiency (p = .785, ρ = .028), a significant progress was found for one of the two surgeons regarding laser energy efficiency (p = .014). The overall incidence of all grade treatment-related adverse events was very low at 10.0%, and extremely low for significant complications with Clavien-Dindo Grade > II at 1%.
Conclusions:
In our analysis, switching to HoLEP is uncomplicated and safe for experienced ThuLEP surgeons. The enucleation efficiency was high from the beginning, but a learning curve was present for both surgeons. No learning curve was noticeable in hemoglobin loss and the incidence of complications, both of which were very low throughout the study.
Context
Holmium (HoLEP) and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) are the two methods most commonly applied for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. It remains unclear which of the two is superior in terms of outcome and complications.
Objective
To compare perioperative and functional outcomes between HoLEP and ThuLEP.
Evidence acquisition
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and in line with the PRISMA criteria. A comprehensive database search including MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL was conducted according to the PICO criteria. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered. All review steps were conducted by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool for RCTs.
Evidence synthesis
The search identified 556 studies, of which four were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis, reporting on a total of 579 patients with follow-up of up to 18 months. No significant differences in operating time, enucleation weight, catheterization time, or hospital stay were observed between ThuLEP and HoLEP. The decrease in hemoglobin was significantly lower for ThuLEP (mean difference −0.54 g/dl, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.93 to −0.15; p < 0.001), but with low certainty of evidence. Transient urinary incontinence was more common for HoLEP (odds ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.32–0.99; p = 0.045), again with low certainty of evidence. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed for other complications or for functional measures and symptom scores.
Conclusions
ThuLEP and HoLEP offer comparable improvement in symptoms and postoperative voiding parameters. Both procedures are safe and major complications are rare. ThuLEP showed minor advantages for blood loss and the incidence of transient incontinence. This should be interpreted with caution owing to the low certainty of evidence. Therefore, treatment choice should be based on surgeon expertise and local conditions.
Patient summary
We reviewed four clinical trials that compared holmium and thulium lasers for treatment to reduce the size of the prostate gland. Our review assessed outcomes and complications. We found that both laser techniques are safe and suitable for reducing symptoms due to an enlarged prostate. Blood loss and short-lasting urinary incontinence were slightly lower after thulium compared to holmium laser treatment.
Background:
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a highly effective procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) that is size independent and has been recommended for patients requiring antiplatelet (AP) and anticoagulant (AC) medications. Although HoLEP is feasible in AP/AC patients, there is a lack of published results on real world outcomes of patients on AP/AC therapy undergoing HoLEP.
Patients and methods:
We performed a retrospective review of our institutional HoLEP database of demographics, perioperative and postoperative data and outcomes of patients on AP and AC therapy compared to none. We also further stratified patients on warfarin compared to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC).
Results:
Of 472 patients who underwent HoLEP at our institution from July 2018 thru December 2019 with data on AP/AC drugs, 30 (6.3%) were on AP and 65 (17.2%) were on AC. One patient continued AP (3.3%), six patients (9.2%) were bridged on AC and one patient (1.5%) continued AC through the time of HoLEP at discretion of prescribing provider. Preoperatively, only age was significantly different amongst the three groups (p<0.001). There were no intraoperative differences. Postoperatively, there was a higher 90 day complication rate in AP and AC groups (p=0.035), but not an increase in Emergency Department visits (p=0.557) or Clavien3 complications (p=0.16). In comparison of patients on warfarin to DOAC, there was a lower rate of successful voiding trial (p=0.009), higher 90 day complications (p=0.003), and more Emergency Department visits (p=0.003) in the warfarin group.
Conclusions:
HoLEP is safe and effective for patients who require AP or AC therapy. There is no increase in serious complications or worsened postoperative voiding parameters. Of patients on AC, those on DOAC have better outcomes compared to warfarin.
Introduction and objectives:
To evaluate the safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in patients on oral anticoagulation (OA) with respect to intra- and postoperative bleeding complications.
Methods:
Between January 2013 and October 2016, 2178 patients were included in this study, of whom 94 received direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and 151 received vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) before HoLEP. All patients either ceased OA (DOACs) or were bridged subtherapeutically (VKAs, international normalized ratio <2) during surgery. These patients were compared to a sample size of 1933 nonanticoagulated patients.
Results:
A significant longer postoperative stay was noted for the patients on DOACs (5.2 [4-6] days) and VKAs (5.3 [4-5] days) compared to the control group (4.5 [4-4] days). The mean drop in hemoglobin was significantly higher in the VKA group compared to the DOAC and control group. There was a significantly higher rate of postoperative bladder tamponades/secondary coagulation in patients on OA with 6 (7.9%)/3 (3.9%) patients in the DOAC group, 10 (7.4%)/6 (4.4%) patients in the VKA group compared to 37 (2.2%)/21 (2.1%) patients in the control group, respectively (p < 0.001). Eight patients required blood transfusions with a distribution of 1 (1.3%), 3 (2.2%), and 4 (0.2%) patients in the DOAC, VKA, and control group, respectively (p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Our findings indicate that bridged patients who's DOACs and VKAs were ceased before HoLEP are at higher risk of intra- and postoperative bleeding complications. Nonetheless, HoLEP appears to be a safe and effective procedure in those patients.
The latest update of the EAU Guidelines on Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction in 2016 announced a novel acronym for transurethral Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate (EEP). This was inspired by a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials on Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HolEP) and bipolar enucleation versus open simple prostatectomy. EEP codes for the common ground of both techniques: "anatomical enucleation." Although study quality with regard to the availability of long-term randomized controlled trials is at the moment mostly available for HoLEP, and bipolar enucleation, the existing data of all other enucleating techniques that have been demonstrated to perform anatomical enucleation as well should also been summarized under the same term. This editorial is a call for embracing this acronym of EEP for all anatomical enucleating techniques in order to serve for the transition from the age of TURP and open prostatectomy toward the age of EEP.
Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a well-established technique for the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A significant number of patients who require surgery for BPH are being treated with anticoagulation (AC) or antiplatelet (AP) therapy. We evaluated the efficacy and morbidity of HoLEP in this population. Materials and Methods: One hundred sixteen patients who required AC/AP therapy undergoing HoLEP from 1999 to 2014 were compared with 1558 HoLEP patients who were not on AC/AP therapy (no AC/AP). Patients on intermittent vs continuous AC/AP therapy were also compared. Results: No significant differences in preoperative characteristics were found between patients who did and did not receive AC/AP therapy. Intraoperative characteristics were similar except for enucleation time (51 minutes vs 65 minutes, AC/AP vs no AC/AP, respectively, p < 0.001) and morcellation rate (5 g/min vs 4.5 g/min, AC/AP vs no AC/AP, respectively, p = 0.02). Postoperative outcomes were comparable in all aspects except for length of hospital stay (27.8 hours vs 24 hours, p < 0.001) and duration of continuous bladder irrigation (15 hours vs 13.5 hours, p < 0.001), both of which were longer in the AC/AP group. There was no difference between cohorts in the lowest postoperative hemoglobin or transfusion rate. Two patients (1.9%) in the AC/AP cohort required clot evacuation vs 10 patients (0.7%) in the no AC/AP cohort. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative characteristics between patients on continuous vs intermittent AC/AP were not statistically significant, except for specimen weight (55.5 g vs 74.5 g, p = 0.028), which was greater in the intermittent AC group. Conclusion: Other than slight prolongation of duration of bladder irrigation and hospital stay, the intermittent or continuous use of anticoagulant therapy did not adversely affect outcomes of HoLEP, suggesting that this approach is an attractive approach for such patients, especially when the prostate is extremely large.
Retrograde transurethral anatomical enucleation of the prostate is gaining momentum as a new concept in transurethral surgery of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Its adaptation is boosted by the familiarity of urologists with the finger-assisted anatomical enucleation of the adenoma during open prostatectomy and the combination of this well-established concept with the minimal invasive characteristics of transurethral surgery. The thulium laser appears as an ideal energy source for such operation. In this work, current evidence on thulium laser-assisted anatomical enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) is being reviewed.
A comprehensive literature review was performed on Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane databases retrieving all literature on thulium laser-assisted prostatectomy between 2006 and 2015. Experimental studies, review articles and editorial comments as well as studies on thulium laser-assisted approaches other than ThuLEP (i.e., ThuVEP, ThuVAP or ThuVARP) were excluded from the analysis.
In total, six original articles on either surgical technique or clinical outcomes were retrieved. With regard to functional results, ThuLEP presented no significant differences toward the standard treatment (TURP/HoLEP) arm in two randomized controlled trials and favorable outcomes in available prospective cohorts. Observed morbidity was minimum and comparable with the rest of transurethral literature.
ThuLEP literature is still very limited. Based on the available data, the approach is safe and effective, demonstrating favorable outcomes, comparable with the current standard treatment options. Further documentation of ThuLEP outcomes is necessary to define the optimum indications of this novel technique.
Laser treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) has become more prevalent in recent years. Although multiple surgical approaches exist, there is confusion about laser-tissue interaction, especially in terms of physical aspects and with respect to the optimal treatment modality.
To compare available laser systems with respect to physical fundamentals and to discuss the similarities and differences among introduced laser devices.
The paper is based on the second expert meeting on the laser treatment of BPO organised by the European Association of Urology Section of Uro-Technology. A systematic literature search was also carried out to cover the topic of laser treatment of BPO extensively.
The principles of generation of laser radiation, laser fibre construction, the types of energy emission, and laser-tissue interaction are discussed in detail for the laser systems used in the treatment of BPO. The most relevant laser systems are compared and their physical properties discussed in depth.
Laser treatment of BPO is gaining widespread acceptance. Detailed knowledge of the physical principles allows the surgeon to discriminate between available laser systems and their possible pitfalls to guarantee high safety levels for the patient.
The preliminary experience with 64 patients who have undergone HoLEP combined with intravesical morcellation is presented. The mean preoperative prostate volume was 75.3 cc. The mean laser time was 46.9 minutes and the morcellator time a further 10.5 minutes. A mean total of 35.5 g of tissue was obtained, and 93% of the patients were discharged the day after their surgery without a catheter. The American Urological Association Symptom Score at 1 month was 8.6 and the peak flow rate 23.4 mL/sec. This combination of procedures allows prostate glands of virtually any size to be safely treated transurethrally, and a complete anatomic enucleation of the prostatic adenoma is achieved.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of thulium laser resection of prostate-tangerine technique (TmLRP) in treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).
Thirty BPH patients, aged 74 (61-83), with a mean prostate volume of 58 ml, average international prostate symptom score (IPSS) of 19, and average maximum urinary flow (Q(max)) of 8.0 ml/s underwent TmLRP using 50 watt, 2.01 microm Tm laser. The values of hematocrit, serum sodium, potassium, and chlorine concentrations, hemoglobin, Q(max), and IPSS before and 1 and 3 months after TmLRP were compared.
The mean operating time was 56 minutes. No significant bleeding was found during operation. Post-operative bladder irrigation was no necessary. The urethral catheter was indwelled for 1-3 days post-operatively. There were not significant differences in values of hematocrit, serum sodium, potassium, and chlorine concentrations, and hemoglobin before and 1-3 months after the operation. One month after the operation, the Q(max) was 23.1 ml/s and IPSS was 7.9, and 3 months after the operation the was 24.7 ml/s and the IPSS was 7.1. By the end of 3-month follow-up no new cases of impotence and retrograde ejaculation had been found.
TmLRP is a safe and efficient procedure in treatment of BPH.