Bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate vs open prostatectomy in large benign prostatic hyperplasia cases - a medium term, prospective, randomized comparison.

UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: According to the EAU Guidelines 2012, large size benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) cases (>80 mL) continue to have open prostatectomy as the first line treatment alternative, despite the substantial peri-operative morbidity and extended catheterization and convalescence periods related to this undoubtedly invasive approach. During the past two decades, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate was constantly described as a successful choice for this category of patients. According to rather numerous studies, the technique displayed superior results in terms of surgical safety and postoperative recovery compared with the open procedure. On the other hand, the concept of electrosurgical enucleation of the prostate, using either a monopolar or bipolar cutting current, materialized into several technical applications that eventually failed to gain general acknowledgement as reliable alternatives to the BPH transurethral approach. While keeping in mind the already proved advantage of enucleating substantial quantities of BPH tissue, bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate was introduced as a novel endoscopic approach in cases of large prostates. The present trial represents the first prospective, medium-term, randomized comparison to be published of this innovative technique with standard open prostatectomy. Basically, the premises for a viable alternative relied on the practical advantages provided by the 'button' electrode, mainly the large surface creating the conditions for a fast enucleation process, continuous vaporization and concomitant haemostasis. Eventually, it was concluded that the plasma enucleation procedure distinguished itself as a successful treatment option in large BPH patients, characterized by good surgical efficiency, significantly reduced complications, faster postoperative recovery, similar prostatic tissue ablation capabilities and satisfactory follow-up results compared with the open technique. Most importantly, plasma-button enucleation patients benefited from a similar 12 months' outcome from the perspectives of symptom scores and voiding parameters when drawing a parallel with open surgery results, thus underlining the reliable viability of this type of endoscopic approach. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the viability of bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate (BPEP) by comparison with open transvesical prostatectomy (OP) in cases of large prostates with regard to surgical efficacy and peri-operative morbidity. To compare the medium-term follow-up parameters specific for the two methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 140 benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with prostate volume >80 mL, maximum flow rate (Qmax ) <10 mL/s and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >19 were randomized in the two study arms. All cases were assessed preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery by IPSS, Qmax , quality of life score (QoL) and post-voiding residual urinary volume (PVR). The prostate volume and prostate specific antigen (PSA) level were measured at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: The BPEP and OP techniques emphasized similar mean operating durations (91.4 vs 87.5 min) and resected tissue weights (108.3 vs 115.4 g). The postoperative haematuria rate (2.9% vs 12.9%) as well as the mean haemoglobin drop (1.7 vs 3.1 g/dL), catheterization period (1.5 vs 5.8 days) and hospital stay (2.1 vs 6.9 days) were significantly improved for BPEP. Recatheterization for acute urinary retention was more frequent in the OP group (8.6% vs 1.4%), while the rates of early irritative symptoms were similar for BPEP and OP (11.4% vs 7.1%). During the follow-up period, no statistically significant difference was determined in terms of IPSS, Qmax , QoL, PVR, PSA level and postoperative prostate volume between the two series. CONCLUSIONS: BPEP represents a promising endoscopic approach in large BPH cases, characterized by good surgical efficiency and similar BPH tissue removal capabilities compared with standard transvesical prostatectomy. BPEP patients benefited from significantly reduced complications, shorter convalescence and satisfactory follow-up symptom scores and voiding parameters.

Which Flexible Ureteroscopes (Digital vs. Fiber-Optic) Can Easily Reach the Difficult Lower Pole Calices and Have Better End-Tip Deflection: In Vitro Study on K-Box. A PETRA Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Modern flexible ureteroscopes (fURSs) have good deflection, but despite this, approaching an acute angled calix can still be difficult. The goals of our in vitro study were to assess the ability of the available modern fURSs to effectively access the sharp angled calices and to compare the end-tip deflection of the various fiber-optic and digital fURSs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a bench-training model for FURS (K-Box, Porgès-Coloplast), we tried to access an acute angled calix with nine different fURSs (BOA vision, COBRA vision, R.Wolf; FLEX X2, FLEX Xc, K.Storz; LithoVue, Boston Scientific; URF-P5, URF-P6, URF-V, URF-V2, Olympus). Passing the fURSs through a ureteral access sheath (ReTrace, Porgès-Coloplast), the maximum end-tip deflection for every fURS was measured with the tip extended out from the sheath at 1, 2, 3, and 4 cm. Two ranking methods were designed for scoring the fURSs, one based on total ranking points and the other on total degrees of deflection. RESULTS: While all fiber-optic fURSs (except URF-P6) were able to access the sharp angled calix, none of the digital fURSs (except FLEX Xc) reached the difficult angled calix. Similarly, all fiber-optic fURSs had better end-tip deflection compared with the digital fURSs, except FLEX Xc, which was as deflectable as the fiber-optic fURSs. The fURSs showed an end-tip deflection (median difference of almost 21°) in favor of fiber-optic fURSs. Based on the scoring, the highest ranked fURS (best deflection) was FLEX X2 and the lowest ranked fURS (worst deflection) was URF-V2. CONCLUSIONS: Digital fURSs were less effective in accessing the sharp angled calix and they had lesser end-tip deflection compared with the fiber-optic counterparts. When approaching a difficult lower pole calix, it might be better to use a fiber-optic fURS.

Bipolar plasma vaporization versus standard transurethral resection in secondary bladder neck sclerosis: a prospective, medium-term, randomized comparison.

OBJECTIVES: This prospective, randomized, medium-term trial aimed to assess the efficiency, safety and postoperative results of bipolar plasma vaporization (BPV) in comparison with monopolar transurethral resection (TUR) in cases of secondary bladder neck sclerosis (BNS). METHODS: A total of 70 patients with BNS secondary to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP; 46 cases), open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH; 18 cases) and radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (6 cases) were enrolled in the trial. The inclusion criteria consisted of maximum flow rate (Q max) <10 ml/s and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >19. All patients were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after surgery by IPSS, quality of life score (QoL), Q max and postvoiding residual urinary volume (PVR). RESULTS: The mean operation time (10.3 versus 14.9 minutes), catheterization period (0.75 versus 2.1 days) and hospital stay (1.1 versus 3.2 days) were significantly reduced in the BPV series. During the immediate postoperative follow up, recatheterization for acute urinary retention only occurred in the TUR series (5.7%). The medium-term retreatment requirements due to BNS recurrence were lower in the BPV study arm (2.8% versus 8.5%). At the 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months assessments, statistically similar parameters were found concerning the IPSS and QoL symptom scores, Q max and PVR values specific for the two therapeutic alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: BPV constitutes a valuable endoscopic treatment approach for secondary BNS. The method emphasized superior efficacy, a satisfactory safety profile and similar medium-term follow-up features when compared with standard TUR.