A randomised study of TURP after intraprostatic injection of mepicacaine/adrenaline versus regular TURP in patients with LUTS/BPO.

INTRODUCTION: During transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), the most established surgical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), the prostate can bleed profusely, bringing about anaemia and compromised oxygen delivery to the entire body. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of mepivacaine and adrenaline (MA) injected into the prostate on bleeding. The primary endpoint was to measure blood loss per resected weight of prostate tissue. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomised controlled trial evaluated 81 patients with LUTS/BPO. Patients were randomly allocated to regular TURP or TURP with intraprostatic injections of MA. RESULTS: On univariable analyses there was a significant difference in resection weight in favour of the experimental group, not reflected by a statistically significant difference in the other studied outcome parameters. Nevertheless, in multivariable analyses, blood loss per resection weight, which was the primary outcome, showed a significant decrease in favour of the experimental group. Clavien-Dindo complication classification showed three men with a grade I complication and two men with grade II. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in this study showed that it is beneficial to apply intraprostatic injections of MA in immediate conjunction with TURP, in terms of blood loss per resected gram. The study is, however, small and corroboration of our results in more extensive prospective studies may therefore be warranted before embarking upon this technique.

Treatment with CoreTherm in 570 patients with prostate volumes of 80-366 ml: an evaluation of short- and long-term retreatment risk.

INTRODUCTION: CoreTherm (ProstaLund AB, Lund, Sweden) is an outpatient treatment option in men with lower urinary tract symptoms and catheter-dependent men with chronic urinary retention caused by benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). CoreTherm is high-energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy with feedback technique. Modern treatment with CoreTherm includes transurethral intraprostatic injections of mepivacaine and adrenaline via the Schelin Catheter (ProstaLund AB, Lund, Sweden) and is often referred to as the CoreTherm Concept. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term retreatment risk in men with large prostates and BPO or chronic urinary retention, all primarily treated with CoreTherm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All men from the same geographical area with prostate volumes ≥ 80 ml treated 1999-2015 with CoreTherm and having BPO or were catheter-dependent due to chronic urinary retention, were included. End of study period was defined as December 31, 2019. RESULTS: We identified and evaluated 570 men treated with CoreTherm, where 12% (71 patients) were surgically retreated during the follow-up. Mean follow-up was 11 years, and maximum follow-up was 20 years. The long-term retreatment rate in our study was 23%. A majority of these could be retreated with CoreTherm or TURP, with only 3% requiring open surgery. CONCLUSION: We conclude that CoreTherm is a suitable outpatient treatment option in patients with profoundly enlarged prostates, regardless of age, prostate size, and reason for treatment.

Prostate volume and age are predictors of energy delivery using the CoreTherm Concept in patients with LUTS/BPO: a study on thermal dose.

Objective: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the scientific evidence supporting the use of thermal dose as a secondary (or an alternative) endpoint when using the CoreTherm Concept.Material and methods: Baseline and treatment data from 283 consecutive treatments were evaluated. All patients had lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). After evaluation, benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) was evident. As treatment, the CoreTherm Concept was used in all patients with LUTS/BPO. Data parameters were retrospectively extracted and included patient age, prostate volume, energy delivery, treatment time and calculated cell kill. In addition, assessment of temperature curves and calculated intraprostatic blood flow was made to define an optimal treatment. In total, 199 treatments assessed as optimal were included in the study.Results: There was a significant correlation between pretreatment prostate volume and energy delivery (p < .001). Age also influenced energy consumption significantly (p = .01).Conclusion: The solid correlation between pretreatment prostate volume and age versus total energy deposition implies the recommendation that a pretreatment calculation of an appropriate energy deposition should be used in all treatments as an alternative treatment endpoint.

High-energy feedback microwave thermotherapy and intraprostatic injections of mepivacaine and adrenaline: an evaluation of calculated cell kill accuracy and responder rate.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate cell kill accuracy and responder rate when using injections of intraprostatic mepivacaine and adrenaline (MA) before high-energy microwave thermotherapy (HE-TUMT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective evaluation encompassed 283 treatments in men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. They were treated consecutively during 2003-2008 using HE-TUMT with a feedback technique. Immediately before treatment, MA was administered into the prostate via a Schelin Catheter®. Clinical outcome was evaluated 3 months after treatment using a validated symptom score, transrectal ultrasound, peak urinary flow and postvoid residual. RESULTS: Systematic underestimation of the resulting coagulation necrosis was a consistent finding when using MA, a calculated cell kill of 21% yielding a volume reduction of 26% for prostate volumes less than 100 ml and 31% for prostate volumes greater than or equal to 100 ml. Mean prostate volume was 74 ml and mean treatment time was 13 min. Less than 1% of the patients needed analgesics or sedatives on demand. Analysis of the data showed an estimated clinical responder rate of approximately 87%. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting prostate volume reduction corresponds to the earlier empirically recommended 30% cell kill for CoreTherm® without MA. The treatment concept combining CoreTherm with intraprostatic injections of MA corresponds to the clinical outcome of thermotherapy without MA, with the benefits of reduced pain, shortened treatment time and decreased energy consumption.