Efficacy and safety profile of GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate in ≥ 75 years old patients: results from the Italian GreenLight Laser Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) is the most common non-malignant urological condition among men and its incidence rise with age. Among prostate treatments, GreenLight laser seems to reduce bleeding and would be safer in the aging population. AIMS: We aimed to compare the functional outcomes and safety profile of < 75 years old (Group A) and ≥ 75 years old (Group B) patients. METHODS: In a multicenter setting, we retrospectively analyzed all the patients treated with GreenLight Laser vaporization of the prostate (PVP). RESULTS: 1077 patients were eligible for this study. 757 belonged to Group A (median age 66 years) and 320 to Group B (median age 78 years). No differences were present between the two groups in terms of prostate volume, operative time, hospital stay, PSA decrease over time after surgery, complications and re-intervention rate with a median follow-up period of 18 months (IQR 12-26). Nevertheless, focusing on complications, GreenLight laser PVP demonstrated an excellent safety profile in terms of hospital stay, re-intervention and complications, with an overall 29.6% complication rate in older patients and only two cases of Clavien III. Functional outcomes were similar at 12 month and became in favor of Group A over time. These data are satisfactory with a Qmax improvement of 111.7% and an IPSS reduction of 69.5% in older patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate is a safe and efficient procedure for all patients, despite their age, with comparable outcomes and an equal safety profile.

Standard vs. anatomical 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate: a propensity score analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and complications rates after 180-W GreenLight laser (180-W GL laser) standard and anatomical photoselective vaporization (sPVP and aPVP). METHODS: Within a multi-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent sPVP or aPVP to relief BPH symptoms. IPSS, Q max, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were measured at baseline and during the follow-up. PGI-I score as well as early and late complications were recorded at follow-up visits. Log-binomial and multivariable proportional odds regression models were fitted to estimate the effect of aPVP vs. sPVP on PGI-I as well as on early and late complication rates, before and after adjustment for propensity score. RESULTS: 813 patients were included. Of those, the 50.4% underwent aPVP. Patients who underwent aPVP had larger prostate (64 vs. 55 mL, p < 0.001) and higher baseline PSA levels (3.1 vs. 2.5 ng/mL, p < 0.001). PGI-I score was signaled as very improved, improved, slightly improved, unchanged, or worsened in 55.5, 32.8, 8.3, 2.3, and 1.2% of the cases, respectively, with no differences according the technique used (p = 0.420). Acute urinary retention occurred in 9.2 vs. 8.9% of patients after aPVP vs. sPVP (p = 0.872). All models failed to find differences in: patients' satisfaction (OR 1.19, p = 0.256), early complications (RR 0.93, p = 0.387), early urge/incontinence symptoms (RR 0.97, p = 0.814), and late complications rates (RR 0.70, p = 0.053), after aPVP vs. sPVP. CONCLUSION: Our results showed similar functional results and complication rates after aPVP and sPVP. However, aPVP was used in larger prostates. Both techniques guarantee high patient's satisfaction.

UVENTA urethral stents: Are we taking a step forward? The first clinical series. / Stent uretral UVENTA: ¿Un paso para adelante? La primera serie clínica.

OBJECTIVES: To describe first clinical results in term of safety, complications and short term efficacy of temporary placement of UVENTA urethral stent in the treatment of urethral and bladder neck strictures. METHODS: UVENTA urethral stent (Taewoong Medical) is a temporary self expandable covered metallic stent. Anti-migration system and different radial force distribution are the two main innovations. This is a retrospective evaluation of UVENTA stent temporary placements for urethral diseases in two urological Centers. RESULTS: 15 patients underwent UVENTA stent placement between 2016 and 2018. Stent placement was easy and quick in all cases. Considering indwelling period: one patient reported urethral pain related to the stent in the first month, three patients had urinary infection treated with antibiotics; temporary stress incontinence was noted in 21% of bulbar-membranous stents; stent migrations was noted in 3 out of 4 bladder neck cases whereas no bulbar-membranous stents migrated. At removal no significant incrustation, stone or tissue ingrowth were noted, as well as new proximal or distal strictures. Stent removal was uncomplicated in all cases. Median follow up is 9.5 months (6-24). Considering strictures overall success rate is 73% (11/15): 82% for bulbar urethra (9/11) and 50% for bladder neck (2/4). CONCLUSIONS: UVENTA urethral stent showed a satisfying safety profile with few and low grade complications. Absence of migration and damage on healthy mucosa are main achievements. Further cases are needed to confirm these results and to really explore its efficacy.

OBJETIVOS: Describir los primeros resultados clínicos en términos de seguridad, complicaciones y eficacia a corto plazo de la colocación temporal de stent uretral UVENTA en el tratamiento de estenosis de uretra y de cuello vesical.MÉTODOS: El stent uretral UVENTA (Taewoong Medical) es un stent metálico temporal autoexpandible. Las dos principales innovaciones son el sistema antimigración y la distribución de la fuerza radial. Esta es una evaluación retrospectiva de la colocación de UVENTA en enfermedades uretrales en dos centros urológicos. RESULTADOS: 15 pacientes recibieron UVENTA entre 2016 y 2018. La colocación del stent fue fácil y rápida en todos los casos. Teniendo en cuenta el periodo de catéter: un paciente describió dolor uretral relacionado con el stent en el primer mes, 3 pacientes tuvieron infección urinaria tratada con antibióticos; incontinencia urinaria de estrés en el 21% de pacientes con stent en uretra bulbomembranosa; la migración de stents se demostró en 3 de 4 casos con estenosis de cuello vesical, mientras, ningún caso de uretra bulbomembranosa migro. Al quitar el stent, no se observó incrustación significativa, litiasis o tejido en crecimiento, así como nuevas estenosis distales o proximales. La retirada del stent no fue complicada en la mayoría de casos. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 9,5 meses (6-24). Considerando la tasa de éxito en global fue de 73% (11/15): 82% para uretra bulbar (9/11) y 50% para cuello vesical (2/4). CONCLUSIONES: El stent uretral UVENTA demostró un perfil de seguridad satisfactorio con mínimas complicaciones. La ausencia de migración o daño de la mucosa sana son las principales virtudes. Son necesarios más casos para confirmar estos resultados y explorar su eficacia.

Stone free rate and clinical complications in patients submitted to retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): Our experience in 571 consecutive cases.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to report the stone free rate (SFR) and clinical complications in patients submitted to retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 571 procedures of upper urinary stones treated using flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy from January 2014 to February 2020 have been analyzed. Overall SFR was evaluated after 3 months following the procedure by means of a non-contrast computed tomography. Success was considered as stone-free status or ≤ 0.4 cm fragments. RESULTS: The overall SFR was 92.3% in group 1 (stone size: < 1 cm), 88.3% in group 2 (stone size: > 1 ≤ 2 cm), 56.7% in group 3 (stone size: 2-3 cm) and 69.6% in group 4 (multiple stones). Post-operative complications, according to the Clavien- Dindo (CD) classification system, were recorded in 32 (5.6%) procedures. The major complications recorded were: one case of subcapsular hematoma (SRH) associated with pulmonary embolism two days after the procedure (CD Grade IIIa) treated conservatively and one case of hemorrhagic shock 2 hour with multiple renal bleedings requiring urgent nephrectomy (CD Grade IVA). CONCLUSIONS: The RIRS is an effective and safe procedure with a high SFR significantly correlated with the stone size; at the same time, RIRS could be characterized by severe clinical complications that require rapid diagnosis and prompt treatment.

Post-Operative Acute Urinary Retention After Greenlight Laser. Analysis of Risk Factors from A Multicentric Database.

PURPOSE: Greenlight laser is a mini-invasive technique used to treat Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO). Some of the advantages of GreenLight photoselective vaporization (PVP) are shorter catheterization time and hospital stay compared to TURP. Post-operative acute urinary retention (pAUR) leads to patients' discomfort, prolonged hospital stay and increased health care costs. We analyzed risk factors for urinary retention after GreenLight laser PVP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter experience, we retrospectively analyzed the onset of early and late post-operative acute urinary retention in patients undergoing standard or anatomical PVP. The pre-, intra- and post-operative characteristics were compared betweene patients who started to void and the patients who developed post-operative urinary retention. RESULTS: The study included 434 patients suitable for the study. Post-operative acute urinary retention occurred in 39 (9%). Patients with a lower prostate volume (P < .001), an adenoma volume lower than 40 mL (P < .001), and lower lasing time (P = .013) had a higher probability to develop pAUR at the univariate analysis. The multivariate logistic regression confirmed that lower lasing time (95% CI: 0.86-0.99, OR = 0.93, P = .046) and adenoma volume (95% CI: 0.89-0.98, OR = 0.94, P = .006) are correlated to pAUR. Furthermore IPSS ≥ 19 (95% CI: 1.19- 10.75, OR = 2.27, P = .023) and treatment with 5-ARI (95% CI: 1.05-15.03, OR = 3.98, P = .042) are risk factors for pAUR. CONCLUSION: In our series, post-operative acute urinary retention was related to low adenoma volume and lasing time, pre-operative IPSS ≥ 19 and 5-ARI intake. These data should be considered in deciding the best timing for urethral catheters removal.

Operative profile, safety and functional outcomes after GreenLight laser prostate surgery: results from a 12 months follow-up multicenter Italian cohort analyses.

BACKGROUND: Over the two past decades, GreenLight laser therapy has been considered a valid alternative for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia/benign prostatic obstruction (BPH/BPO). However, the debate on the effectiveness of laser therapy compared to conventional techniques is still open. The aim of our study is to analyze and describe the use of GreenLight laser prostate surgery in Italy, with regard to the surgical techniques performed and the surgical and functional outcomes at mid-term follow-up. METHODS: From March 2012 to July 2018, patients who underwent GreenLight laser prostate surgery for LUTS due to BPH/BPO from 19 Italian centers were included. The following parameters were evaluated in the population: age, prostate volume, prostate adenoma volume, PSA tot, Qmax at uroflowmetry (UFM), International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS), previous therapy for LUTS, use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs. We recorded also the kind of anesthesia, mean laser time (min), mean irradiation time (min), TURP conversion/completion rate, postoperative day of catheter removal, postoperative acute urinary retention (AUR), hospital stay, variation of hematocrit (Ht) and hemoglobin levels (Hb). Early complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the re-operation rate within 30 days and after 30 days, the late complications and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement were also collected. Changes over time in terms of blood loss and functional outcomes (IPSS and Qmax at the UFM at 6 and 12 months) were tested with Student's test for paired samples. We assumed P≤0.05 as level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 1077 were enrolled in the study, 554 (56.4%) were treated with standard vaporization and 523 (48.6%) with anatomical vaporization. Student's t-test for paired samples showed no statistically significant differences in terms of reduction of Ht preoperative vs. Ht postoperative (42.80±3.91 vs. 39.93±5.35 95% CI P=0.3) and preintervention and postintervention Hb levels (14.28±1.46 vs. 13.72 P=0.35). Compared with the preoperative Qmax (8.60±2.64), the 6- and 12-month UFM showed a significant improvement [19.56±6.29, P<0.01 and 19.99±5.92 P<0.01]. In terms of IPSS variation, compared to the baseline level (22±5.51) the 6- and 12-month follow-up confirmed a significant reduction (8.01±4.41 P<0.01 and 5.81±4.12 P<0.01 respectively). Postoperative complications were CD0, CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4 in 33.0%,35.3%, 2.9%, 0.3%, and 0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the most numerous surgical series of GreenLight laser vaporization and with the longest follow-up. This technique should be considered as a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of secondary LUTS to BPH.

GreenLight Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate: One Laser for Different Prostate Sizes.

Introduction: GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate (photoselective vaporization of the prostate [PVP]) is a safe and effective procedure for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Long-term results and advantages of PVP in patients with large and symptomatic prostate are still under evaluation. Materials and Methods: In a multicenter experience, patients who underwent standard or anatomical PVP were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with follow-up >12 months were divided into two groups based on prostate volume (<100 cc vs ≥100 cc). Pre- and perioperative data, as well as postoperative results and complications, were recorded after 3, 6, and 12 months and then annually. Results: One thousand and thirty-one patients were eligible, 916 of these had a prostate volume of <100 cc and 115 ≥ 100 cc. Median follow-up period was 25.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 16.5-35.0) and 16.0 months (IQR 12.0-24.0) in ≥100 and <100 groups, respectively. No difference was found in terms of catheterization time, postoperative stay, and postoperative acute urine retention. Patients with prostate ≥100 required longer operative time (75 vs 55 minutes), lasing time (41.7 vs 24.9 minutes), and higher energy used but lower energy density. Patients with prostate ≥100 had a higher incidence of early (50.4% vs 35.7%) and late complications (21.7% vs 12.8%) and early urge/incontinence symptoms (40.9% vs 29.3%). No statistically significant differences were found for the maximum urinary flow (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) results between the two groups. The reintervention rate in ≥100 group was 3.5% vs 2.3% in <100. Conclusions: In the midterm follow-up, GreenLight PVP guarantees the same results in different prostate volume groups. Early and late complications are more frequent in large prostates.

Vaporize, anatomically vaporize or enucleate the prostate? The flexible use of the GreenLight laser.

PURPOSES: GreenLight laser has gained increasing acceptance as a less invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH/LUTS). Three surgical options were developed: standard photovaporization (PVP), anatomical PVP and GreenLight enucleation of prostate (GreenLEP); however, literature lacks a direct comparison among the procedures. Aim of the present study is to compare the three techniques in a multicentre series of patients. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients with indication to surgical management of BPH/LUTS in five institutions. Patients underwent standard PVP, anatomical PVP or GreenLEP according to surgeon preferences. Standard parameters associated with transurethral prostate surgery were documented prior surgery and during the follow-up. Patients' perception of improvement was measured using a single-item scale. Early (within first 30 post-operative days) and delayed post-operative complications were recorded. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariate analysis were used. RESULTS: We evaluate 367 consecutive patients (mean age 69.1 years). Median prostate size and PSA were 68 ml (IQR 50-90) and 2.8 ng/ml (IQR 1.7-4.3), respectively. The median operative time and applied energy were 60 min (IQR 45-75) and 250 kJ (IQR 160-364). Catheterization time and median post-operative stay were 1 and 2 days. No patient was transfused. The overall median Q max values increased for 8-19 ml/s (p < 0.05), median International Prostate Symptoms Score decreased from 24 to 7 (p < 0.05). A total of 7.4% urinary retention, 33.4% bothersome storage symptoms, 2.5% short-term stress incontinence were recorded. Three heart attacks, one pulmonary embolism and one death occurred. Prostate volume was a predictive factor for post-operative storage symptoms (p = 0.049). Nine percentage of patients experienced long-term complications (4, 0.9 and 0.9% of urethral stricture, bladder neck contracture and prostatic fossa sclerosis, respectively) with 2.5% of long-term stress urinary incontinence (conservatively managed). The reintervention rate was 6%. Late complications were associated at univariate analysis with pharmacological therapy (combination therapy vs. alpha blockers alone vs. none: p value = 0.042) and with the surgical approach (standard PVP vs. anatomical PVP vs. GreenLEP p value = 0.011). The patients' perception of satisfaction was 68% "greatly improved", 27% "improved", 4% "not changed" and 1% "worsened" with no differences between techniques. CONCLUSION: The availability of three different GreenLight laser techniques allows surgeons with different skills to safety use this technology that remains effective with high patient satisfaction. Anatomical vaporization seems to guarantee the best balance between functional outcomes, surgical procedures and complications.

Uventa urethral stents: are we taking a step forward? The first clinical series / Stents uretrales de Uventa: ¿estamos dando un paso adelante? La primera serie clínica

Objetives: To describe first clinical results in term of safety, complications and short term efficacy of temporary placement of UVENTA urethral stent in the treatment of urethral and bladder neck strictures. Methods: UVENTA urethral stent (Taewoong Medical) is a temporary self expandable covered metallic stent. Anti-migration system and different radial force distribution are the two main innovations. This is a retrospective evaluation of UVENTA stent temporary placements for urethral diseases in two urological Centers. Results: 15 patients underwent UVENTA stent placement between 2016 and 2018. Stent placement was easy and quick in all cases. Considering indwelling period: one patient reported urethral pain related to the stent in the first month, three patients had urinary infection treated with antibiotics; temporary stress incontinence was noted in 21% of bulbar-membranous stents; stent migrations was noted in 3 out of 4 bladder neck cases whereas no bulbar-membranous stents migrated. At removal no significant incrustation, stone or tissue ingrowth were noted, as well as new proximal or distal strictures. Stent removal was uncomplicated in all cases. Median follow up is 9.5 months (6-24). Considering strictures overall success rate is 73% (11/15): 82% for bulbar urethra (9/11) and 50% for bladder neck (2/4). Conclusions: UVENTA urethral stent showed a satisfying safety profile with few and low grade complications. Absence of migration and damage on healthy mucosa are main achievements. Further cases are neededto confirm these results and to really explore its efficacy.(AU)

Objetivos: Describir los primeros resultados clínicos en términos de seguridad, complicacionesy eficacia a corto plazo de la colocación temporal de stent uretral UVENTA en el tratamiento de estenosis de uretra y de cuello vesical. Métodos: El stent uretral UVENTA (Taewoong Medical) es un stent metálico temporal autoexpandible. Lasdos principales innovaciones son el sistema antimigración y la distribución de la fuerza radial. Esta es unaevaluación retrospectiva de la colocación de UVENTA en enfermedades uretrales en dos centros urológicos. Resultados: 15 pacientes recibieron UVENTA entre 2016 y 2018. La colocación del stent fue fácil y rápida en todos los casos. Teniendo en cuenta el periodo de catéter: un paciente describió dolor uretral relacionado con el stent en el primer mes, 3 pacientes tuvieron infección urinaria tratada con antibióticos; incontinenciaurinaria de estrés en el 21% de pacientes con stent en uretra bulbomembranosa; la migración de stents se demostró en 3 de 4 casos con estenosis de cuello vesical, mientras, ningún caso de uretra bulbomembranosa migro. Al quitar el stent, no se observó incrustación significativa, litiasis o tejido en crecimiento, así como nuevas estenosis distales o proximales. La retirada del stent no fue complicada en la mayoría de casos. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 9,5 meses (6-24). Considerando la tasa de éxito en global fue de 73% (11/15): 82% para uretra bulbar (9/11) y 50% para cuello vesical (2/4). Conclusiones: El stent uretral UVENTA demostró un perfil de seguridad satisfactorio con mínimas complicaciones. La ausencia de migración o daño de la mucosasana son las principales virtudes. Son necesarios más casos para confirmar estos resultados y explorar su eficacia.(AU)