A systematic review of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy outcomes by prostate volume.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study is to assess the differences in functional outcomes during the perioperative and postoperative period after RASP depending on BPH volume. METHODS: We searched 2 databases: MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar using the following search query: robot* AND "simple prostatectomy". The search strategy and review protocol are available at Prospero (CRD42024508071). RESULTS: We included 25 articles published between 2008 and 2023. Preoperatively, patients with prostate size < 100 cm3 had more severe symptoms while postoperatively all of them had only mild lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). In larger BPH, two authors reported moderate LUTS after RASP: Fuschi [1] (mean IPSS 8.09 ± 2.41) and Stolzenburg [2] (mean IPSS 8 ± 2.7). Postoperative Qmax was also noticeably higher in smaller BPH (mean value range 28.5-55.5 ml/s) compared to larger BPH (mean Qmax 18-29.6 ml/s), although in both groups it was within the normal range. Postoperative post-void residual (PVR) was normal as well except in one study by Stolzenburg et al. [2]. Blood loss was comparable between the groups. The complications rate in general was low. CONCLUSION: RASP is effective in terms of subjective and objective urination indicators, and a safe procedure for BPH. In the lack of data on implementation of RASP in small prostate volumes, this procedure can be seen as an upper size «limitless¼ treatment alternative. Currently, comparative data regarding prostate volume is lacking, and future trials with subgroups analysis related to BPH volume might help to address this issue.

Real world propensity score matched analysis evaluating the influence of en-bloc vs. non en-bloc techniques, energy and instrumentation on enucleation outcomes for large and very large prostates.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of the study was to evaluate if en-bloc vs. non en-bloc made a difference to intra-, peri- and post-operative surgical outcomes of anatomical endoscopic enucleation (AEEP) in large (> 80 cc) and very large prostates (> 200 cc). The secondary aim was to determine the influence of energy and instruments used. METHODS: Data of patients with > 80 cc prostate who underwent surgery between 2019 and 2022 were obtained from 16 surgeons across 13 centres in 9 countries. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce confounding. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate factors associated with postoperative urinary incontinence (UI). RESULTS: 2512 patients were included with 991 patients undergoing en-bloc and 1521 patients undergoing non-en-bloc. PSM resulted in 481 patients in both groups. Total operation time was longer in the en-bloc group (p < 0.001), enucleation time was longer in the non en-bloc group (p < 0.001) but morcellation times were similar (p = 0.054). Overall, 30 day complication rate was higher in the non en-bloc group (16.4% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.032). Rate of late complications (> 30 days) was similar (2.3% vs. 2.5%; p > 0.99). There were no differences in rates of UI between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that age, Qmax, pre-operative, post-void residual urine (PVRU) and total operative time were predictors of UI. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, AEEP in large prostates by the en-bloc technique yields a lower rate of complication and a slightly shorter operative time compared to the non en-bloc approach. However, it does not have an effect on rates of post-operative UI.

Incidence of complications and urinary incontinence following endoscopic enucleation of the prostate in men with a prostate volume of 80 ml and above: results from a multicenter, real-world experience of 2512 patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate complications and urinary incontinence (UI) after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) stratified by prostate volume (PV). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent EEP with different energy sources in 14 centers (January 2019-January 2023). INCLUSION CRITERIA: prostate volume ≥ 80 ml. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: prostate cancer, previous prostate/urethral surgery, pelvic radiotherapy. PRIMARY OUTCOME: complication rate. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: incidence of and factors affecting postoperative UI. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1: PV = 80-100 ml; Group 2 PV = 101-200 ml; Group 3 PV > 200 ml. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of overall incontinence. RESULTS: There were 486 patients in Group 1, 1830 in Group 2, and 196 in Group 3. The most commonly used energy was high-power Holmium laser followed by Thulium fiber laser in all groups. Enucleation, morcellation, and total surgical time were significantly longer in Group 2. There was no significant difference in overall 30-day complications and readmission rates. Incontinence incidence was similar (12.1% in Group 1 vs. 13.2% in Group 2 vs. 11.7% in Group 3, p = 0.72). The rate of stress and mixed incontinence was higher in Group 1. Multivariable regression analysis showed that age (OR 1.019 95% CI 1.003-1.035) was the only factor significantly associated with higher odds of incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: PV has no influence on complication and UI rates following EEP. Age is risk factor of postoperative UI.

Pulse modulation in En-Bloc HoLEP: does it really matter? A propensity score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an established option in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pulse modulation, such as MOSES® technology, has recently been introduced and may offer potential advantages in HoLEP. METHODS: Perioperative data from 117 patients who underwent MOSES® laser enucleation of the prostate (MoLEP) were collected. Propensity score matching using prostate volume, age, body mass index (BMI), and anticoagulant intake was performed using a database of 237 patients treated with HoLEP. In total, 234 patients were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Prostate volume (104 vs. 102 ml), age (70 vs. 71 years), BMI (27 vs. 27), and anticoagulant intake (34 vs. 35%) did not differ significantly between the groups. There were no significant differences in operation time (61.5 vs. 58.1 min, p = 0.42), enucleation efficiency (2.5 vs. 2.6 g/min, p = 0.74), hemostasis time (7.8 vs. 8 min, p = 0.75) and hemoglobin drop (0.9 vs. 0.7 mg/dl, p = 0.48). The complication rates were low in both groups (16.2% for HoLEP and 17.1% for MoLEP). No differences were noted in the Clavien-Dindo Classification (p = 0.63) and the Comprehensive Complication Index (p = 0.24). The rate of complications > CDC IIIa was 0.9% for HoLEP (endoscopic coagulation) and 1.7% for MoLEP (2 cases of endoscopic coagulation). No transfusions were administered. CONCLUSION: Overall, the enucleation efficiency was high in both groups and the procedure time was short. HoLEP is an efficient and safe treatment option in experienced hands, regardless of the use of pulse modulation technology.

Real-world experience with the new pulsed solid-state Thulium: YAG laser (Thulio) for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate.

PURPOSE: The solid-state Thulium laser (Tm: YAG) is a novel alternative to the widely used Holmium laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) due to its relatively high peak power. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of a new pulsed Tm: YAG laser in its first application in humans. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected for the first 103 patients who underwent EEP with a new pulsed solid-state Tm: YAG laser (Thulio®, Dornier MedTech Systems GmbH, Weßling, Germany). Peri- and postoperative data were assessed. Procedure-specific complications were graded using Clavien-Dindo Classifications (CDC). Patients were interviewed 15 months after the surgery to evaluate functional and long-term outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®). RESULTS: The mean preoperative prostate volume was 105.6 ± 55.0 ml. Median enucleation speed was 4.1 g per minute (range 1.1-9.7). Short-term postoperative complications occurred in 21 patients (20.4%), but no high-grade complications (CDC ≥ IV) were observed. Five patients suffered gross haematuria and required reintervention (CDC IIIb; 4.9%). After 15 months, 76 patients (73.8%) participated in the follow-up interview, where seven patients (9.2%) reported complications, including two reinterventions for urethral strictures (CDC IIIb; 2.6%). Most patients reported an improvement in continence (54.0%) and urine stream (93.4%), but no difference in erectile function (81.6%). No persistent dysuria was reported. Patient satisfaction with the surgery results was very high (96.1%). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate with the new pulsed solid-state Tm: YAG laser is a safe and effective option for surgical BPH treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00031676. Registration date: 10 May 2023, retrospectively registered.

Holmium laser with MOSES technology (MoLEP) vs Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in a real-world setting. Mid-term outcomes from a multicenter propensity score analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare Holmium laser with MOSES technology (MoLEP) and Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in terms of surgical and functional outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent either procedure in five centers (January 2020-January 2022). EXCLUSION CRITERIA: previous urethral/prostatic surgery, radiotherapy, concomitant surgery. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to adjust for the bias inherent to the different characteristics at baseline. Differences between procedures were estimated using Firth Penalized Likelihood regression for International prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QL), maximum flow rate (Qmax). RESULTS: PSM retrieved 118 patients in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar except for PSA and number of men on indwelling catheter (higher in MoLEP group). Median surgical time was significantly longer in the MoLEP group despite the enucleation and morcellation times being similar. Median catheter dwelling time and postoperative length of stay were similar. Most of the early complications were Clavien ≤ 2 grade. There were only two Clavien grade 3 complications (one for each group), one grade 4 in MoLEP group. Rate and type of early and persistent incontinence (> 3 months) were similar. At 12-month, proportion of patients reaching a decrease (Δ) of IPSS ≥ 18 from baseline was significantly larger in MoLEP group, with no significant difference in ΔQmax > 12 ml/sec and ΔQL ≥ -3. CONCLUSION: MoLEP and ThuFLEP were safe and efficacious procedures with similar short-term operative and functional outcomes. At 1-year, MoLEP patients had a sustained reduction of IPPS score.

Results from a global multicenter registry of 6193 patients to refine endoscopic anatomical enucleation of the prostate (REAP) by evaluating trends and outcomes and nuances of prostate enucleation in a real-world setting.

PURPOSE: To collect a multicentric, global database to assess current preferences and outcomes for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP). METHODS: Endourologists experienced in EEP from across the globe were invited to participate in the creation of this retrospective registry. Surgical procedures were performed between January 2020 and August 2022. INCLUSION CRITERIA: lower urinary tract symptoms not responding to or worsening despite medical therapy and absolute indication for surgery. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: prostate cancer, concomitant lower urinary tract surgery, previous prostate/urethral surgery, pelvic radiotherapy. RESULTS: Ten centers from 7 countries, involving 13 surgeons enrolled 6193 patients. Median age was 68 [62-74] years. 2326 (37.8%) patients had large prostates (> 80 cc). The most popular energy modality was the Holmium laser. The most common technique used for enucleation was the 2-lobe (48.8%). 86.2% of the procedures were performed under spinal anesthesia. Median operation time was 67 [50-95] minutes. Median postoperative catheter time was 2 [1, 3] days. Urinary tract infections were the most reported complications (4.7%) followed by acute urinary retention (4.1%). Post-operative bleeding needing additional intervention was reported in 0.9% of cases. 3 and 12-month follow-up visits showed improvement in symptoms and micturition parameters. Only 8 patients (1.4%) required redo surgery for residual adenoma. Stress urinary incontinence was reported in 53.9% of patients and after 3 months was found to persist in 16.2% of the cohort. CONCLUSION: Our database contributes real-world data to support EEP as a truly well-established global, safe minimally invasive intervention and provides insights for further research.

Thulium: YAG vs continuous-wave thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate: do potential advantages of thulium fiber lasers translate into relevant clinical differences?

PURPOSE: To compare endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser and a super-pulsed thulium fiber laser set in continuous-wave (CW) mode, and to evaluate whether theoretical advantages of thulium fiber lasers, related to their shorter wavelength, translate into relevant clinical differences. METHODS: In total, 110 patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to undergo either thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) or CW thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (CW-ThuFLEP). Intraoperative and postoperative variables and complications were compared. Micturition improvement was assessed at 3-month follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine (PVR) and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Erectile function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5). RESULTS: No significant differences between the ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP groups were found in terms of operative time (70.69 vs 72.41 min), enucleation time (50.23 vs 53.33 min), enucleated tissue weight (40.2 vs 41.9 g), enucleation efficiency (0.80 vs 0.79 g/min), catheterization time (2.45 vs 2.57 days), hospital stay (2.82 vs 2.95 days) and hemoglobin drop (1.05 vs 1.27 g/dl). At 3-month follow-up, no significant differences were found in IPSS (5.09 vs 5.81), Qmax (26.51 vs 27.13 ml/s), PVR (25.22 vs 23.81 ml) and IIEF-5 (14.01 vs 14.54). CONCLUSION: ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP were equivalent in relieving patients from LUTS and improving micturition. Theoretical advantages of the TFL, such as shallower penetration depth and improved vaporization capacity, did not translate into relevant perioperative outcomes or clinical differences.

Is day-case surgery feasible for laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) for benign prostatic obstruction has become increasingly prevalent worldwide. Considering the medical cost-savings and concomitantly fewer nosocomial infections, the feasibility of same-day postoperative discharge of patients who have undergone laser EEP in terms of its safety and effectiveness has become a subject matter of growing interest. We aimed to review those studies focussing on day-case surgery (DCS) in patients undergoing laser EEP. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed-MEDLINE and Web of Science databases until October 2022 with the following search terms: "same day discharge AND laser enucleation of the prostate", "day-case AND laser enucleation of the prostate", "same day surgery AND laser enucleation of the prostate" and "one day surgery AND laser enucleation of the prostate" by combining PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) terms. We identified 15 eligible studies. RESULTS: While 14 of the studies focussed on holmium laser EEP, one focused on thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate. We observed an improvement in functional parameters in all studies we reviewed, and DCS success and readmission rates ranged between 35.3-100% and 0-17.8%, respectively. The complication rates varied between 0 and 36.7%, most of the complicatons were Clavien-Dindo (CD) I and II. CD ≥ III complications did not significantly differ between same day discharge (SDD) and non-SDD groups in the studies. CONCLUSION: Laser EEP is feasible and promising DCS treatment option delivering improved functional parameters compared to baseline values, and lower perioperative complication and readmission rates in certain patients.

Perioperative Outcome of Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate versus Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare clinical safety and efficiency of Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for the treatment of large gland benign prostatic hyperplasia in a tertiary care center. METHODS: Perioperative data of 39 patients who underwent RASP in our institution from 2015 to 2021 was collected. Propensity score matching using prostate volume, patient age, and body mass index (BMI) was performed from a database of 1,100 Patients treated by ThuLEP from 2009 to 2021. A total of 76 patients were matched. Preoperative parameters such as BMI, age, and prostate volume, as well as intra- and postoperative parameters such as operation time, resection weight, transfusion rate, postoperative catheterization time, length of hospital stay (LoS), hemoglobin drop, postoperative urinary retention (PUR), Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC), and the Combined Complication Index (CCI), were evaluated. RESULTS: There was no difference in mean hemoglobin drop (2.2 vs. 1.9 g/dL, p = 0.34), yet endoscopic surgery showed superiority in mean operation time (109 vs. 154 min, p < 0.001), mean postoperative catheterization time (3.3 vs. 7.2 days, p < 0.001), and mean LOS (5.4 vs. 8.4 days, p < 0.001). Complication rates evaluated by CDC (p = 0.11) and CCI (p = 0.89) were similar in both groups. Within the documented complications, transfusion rate (0 vs. 3, p = 0.08) and the occurrence of PUR (1 vs. 2, p = 0.5) showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: ThuLEP and RASP show similar perioperative efficacy and a low rate of complications. ThuLEP had shorter operation times, shorter catheterization time, and a shorter LoS.

Randomized prospective trial of the severity of irritative symptoms after HoLEP vs ThuFLEP.

PURPOSE: To compare the short-term postoperative functional outcomes and severity of irritative symptoms following holmium and thulium fiber laser enucleation (HoLEP and ThuFLEP). METHODS: This prospective randomized single-blinded study was performed in accordance with CONSORT. The inclusion criteria were IPSS > 20 or Qmax < 10 ml/s. Patients were randomized between HoLEP and ThuFLEP. Demographics, objective data (PSA, prostate volume, etc.), data on urinary and sexual function (IPSS, IIEF, QoL, QUID, Qmax, ICIQ-MLUTS) were collected. Detailed perioperative information and postoperative data on functional outcomes at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 weeks and 6 months were collected. RESULTS: Data on 163 participants were included (77-HoLEP, 86-ThuFLEP). No differences were found in surgery duration; number of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo I-III), catheterization time and hospital stay. Functional outcomes up to 6 months didn't differ between the groups (IPPS, IIEF, QoL, QUID, ICIQ-MLUTS, Qmax, p > 0.05). Total ICIQ-MLUTS, bother and voiding scores at 1 and 3 months significantly increased compared with the baseline in both groups (p < 0.05). No difference between the groups were observed. In HoLEP the SUI series rate was 1.3% and 1.3% after 3 and 6 months following the procedure; in ThuFLEP: it was 3.5% and 2.3% respectively (p = 0.35 and p = 0.54). CONCLUSION: The preliminary results of the study showed no apparent differences in functional outcomes (IPSS, Qmax), rate of SUI or irritative symptoms. Both ThuFLEP and HoLEP are efficient ways of treating benign prostatic obstruction. Both surgeries are comparable in terms of duration and postoperative complication rates.

Experimental ex-vivo performance study comparing a novel, pulsed thulium solid-state laser, chopped thulium fibre laser, low and high-power holmium:YAG laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the enucleation performances of four different types of laser devices in an ex-vivo experiment: a novel, pulsed Tm:YAG solid-state laser evaluation model (p-Tm:YAG), chopped thulium fibre laser (TFL), low-power Ho:YAG laser (LP-Ho:YAG), and a high-power Ho:YAG laser (HP-Ho:YAG). METHODS: Our primary aim was to endoscopically separate the fascial layers of a porcine belly using laser fibres within a time period of 60 s. The size of a "tissue pocket" was assessed numerically. The enucleation characteristics reflecting the surgeon's experience were evaluated via the NASA Task Load Index (TLX) questionnaire and a questionnaire based on Likert scale. RESULTS: HP-Ho:YAG achieved with the available laser settings the largest overall "tissue pocket" (31.5 cm2) followed by p-Tm:YAG (15 cm2), TFL (12 cm2), and LP-Ho:YAG (6 cm2). The coagulation performances of p-Tm:YAG and TFL were rated the best. In the performance evaluation by the Likert questionnaire, HP-Ho:YAG (average score of 4.06) was rated highest, followed by p-Tm:YAG (3.94), TFL (3.38), and LP-Ho:YAG (3.25). The evaluation of the NASA-TLX performance questionnaire revealed average scores for HP-Ho:YAG, LP-Ho:YAG, TFL and p-Tm:YAG of 4.38, 4.09, 3.92 and 3.90, respectively. CONCLUSION: We are the first to compare different laser devices and settings in an ex-vivo study. We found that the surgeons were most satisfied with the HP-Ho:YAG laser device, followed by the p-Tm:YAG. These findings could be highly relevant for future research and for the practical utilisation of laser systems in endourology.

Transurethral plasmakinetic resection versus enucleation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison of intraoperative safety profiles based on endoscopic surgical monitoring system.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intraoperative safety profiles of transurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PK-TURP) with transurethral plasmakinetic endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (PK-EEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) based on endoscopic surgical monitoring system (ESMS). METHODS: A total of 128 patients who were diagnosed with BPH were stratified based on prostate volume (PV) and accepted PK-EEP or PK-TURP treatment at 1:1 ratio. The ESMS as a novel method was used to monitor blood loss and fluid absorption during the operation. Clinical parameters such as intraoperative blood loss volume, fluid absorption volume, operation time, tissue weight of resection, preoperative and postoperative red blood cell count (RBC), hemoglobin concentration (HB), hematocrit (HCT), electrolyte, postoperative bladder irrigation time, indwelling catheter time, hospital stay time and other associated complications were documented and compared between two groups. RESULTS: No significant differences in majority of baseline characteristics were observed among patients with different prostate volumes between two surgical methods. For patients with prostate volume < 40 ml, the average operation time of patients who received PK-EEP treatment was much more than those who received PK-TURP (P = 0.003). On the other hand, for patients with prostate volume > 40 ml, the PK-TURP surgery was associated with a significant increase in intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.021, in PV 40-80 ml group; P = 0.014, in PV > 80 ml group), fluid absorption (P = 0.011, in PV 40-80 ml group; P = 0.006, in PV > 80 ml group) and postoperative bladder irrigation time as well as indwelling catheter time but decrease in resected tissue weight compared to the PK-EEP treatment. CONCLUSION: The ESMS plays an important role in comparison of intraoperative safety profiles between PK-TURP and PK-EEP. Our data suggest that PK-TURP treatment is associated with a decreased operation time in patients with prostate volume < 40 ml and the PK-EEP treatment is associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss, fluid absorption and increased tissue resection for patients with prostate volume > 40 ml. Our results indicate that the size of prostate should be considered when choosing the right operation method.

Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting early stress urinary incontinence following endoscopic enucleation of the prostate.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate a predictive nomogram for early stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: The records of 458 patients who underwent plasmakinetic- or diode-based EEP at our center from March 2016 to December 2019 were reviewed. Among these, 326 and 132 cases were randomly assigned to the training and validation set, respectively. A predictive nomogram was constructed based on multivariate logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and calibration curves were employed to evaluate its performance. RESULTS: 65 years ≤ age < 70 years, 75 years ≤ age, 25 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 30 kg/m2, 30 kg/m2 ≤ BMI, 5 years ≤ LUTS duration, and 75 ml ≤ prostate volume were finally selected as independent predictors of early SUI into the multivariate logistics regression model. It was visualized as a concise nomogram with satisfactory discrimination and accuracy in both training and validation sets. CONCLUSIONS: A concise nomogram was developed and validated as a useful clinical tool for predicting early SUI post-EEP.

Endoscopic enucleation for prostate larger than 60 mL: comparison between holmium laser enucleation and plasmakinetic enucleation.

PURPOSE: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of two different energy sources, holmium laser and bipolar current for endoscopic enucleation of prostate larger than 60 mL. METHODS: A prospective, monocentric, comparative, non-randomized study was conducted including all patients treated for prostate larger than 60 mL, measured by transrectal ultrasound. Patients were assigned to each group based on the surgeons' practice. Perioperative data were collected (preoperative characteristics, operating, catheterization and hospitalization times, hemoglobin loss, complications) and functional outcomes (IPSS, IPSS Quality of Life (QoL), PSA) at 3 months and 1 year. RESULTS: 100 patients were included in each group from October 2015 to March 2018. No differences between HoLEP and plasma groups were observed at baseline, except for mean IPSS score, IPSS QoL score and preoperative PVR that were significantly higher in the HoLEP group. Operating time (142.1 vs 122.4 min; p = 0.01), catheterization time (59.6 vs 44.4 h; p = 0.01) and hospitalization time (2.5 vs 1.8 days; p = 0.02) were significantly shorter in the plasma group. Complication and transfusion rate were no significantly different between HoLEP and plasma. No significant differences were observed concerning functional outcomes at 3 months and 1 year. The urinary incontinence rate was higher 21.1% vs 6.4% (p < 0.01) at 3 months in HoLEP group, but no difference was observed at 1 year. CONCLUSION: Holmium and plasma are both safe and effective for endoscopic treatment for prostate larger than 60 mL. Operating, catheterization and hospitalization times were significantly shorter in the plasma group. The complication rate and functional outcomes were not significantly different.

Ejaculation-sparing thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ES-ThuLEP): outcomes on a large cohort.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of a new ejaculation-sparing thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ES-ThuLEP) technique on sexual functions and micturition, in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to evaluate how the surgical technique of ES-ThuLEP can lead to ejaculation preservation. METHODS: A prospective study was carried out between January 2015 and January 2018 on patients with surgical indication for BPH, who wished to preserve ejaculation. The patients were treated with ES-ThuLEP and were evaluated before and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Three validated questionnaires (ICIQ-MLUTSsex, IIEF-5 and IPSS) were used to assess changes in ejaculation, erectile function and urinary symptoms. Uroflowmetry (Qmax and Qavg), post-void residual volume and voided volume were also evaluated, to assess micturition improvement. Patients with moderate to severe erectile dysfunction were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student's t test, Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty three patients were enrolled. Ejaculation was spared in 203 and 219 patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery. No significant differences were observed between erectile function before and after surgery: baseline IIEF-5 = 16.2 ± 4.47 vs 16.7 ± 2.9 (p = 0.419) and 17.7 ± 3.2 (p = 0.410) at 3 and 6 months. Significant improvement in urinary symptoms was achieved: baseline IPSS = 19.4 ± 7.24 vs 5.8 ± 4.3 (p = 0.032) and 3.9 ± 4.1 (p = 0.029) at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: ES-ThuLEP effectively preserved ejaculation in over two thirds of the patients without compromising micturition improvement or erectile function. ES-ThuLEP could be a valid treatment option for BPH in young and sexually active men.

Laser enucleation for prostates larger than 100 mL: Comparison of HoLEP and ThuLEP.

Recently, with the advancements in laser technology, Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) have come to the fore in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of HoLEP and ThuLEP in patients with >100 ml prostate volume. Patients who underwent HoLEP and ThuLEP between July 2017 and March 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups as HoLEP (Group 1, n = 121) and ThuLEP (Group 2, n = 104). Perioperative parameters, functional outcomes, continence status, intra and post-operative complications were compared between groups in the post-operative 1st and 6th month. No significant difference was found in terms of total laser energy (TLE), morcellation efficiency (ME), enucleated tissue weight (ETW), complication rates (CR) and continence status of patients between both groups (p > .05). In favour of ThuLEP group, there were statistically significant differences regarding total operation time (TOT), laser efficiency (LE), enucleation time (ET) and enucleation efficiency (EE) between groups (p ≤ .05). HoLEP and ThuLEP can be used safely and effectively in prostates larger than 100 ml.

Monopolar enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for small- and medium-sized (< 80 cc) benign prostate hyperplasia: a prospective analysis.

AIM: To assess efficacy and safety of monopolar enucleation of the prostate (MEP) and to compare it with the current treatment standard for medium-sized prostates, < 80 cc, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: A prospective analysis patients undergoing a surgical procedure for their diagnosis of BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) (IPSS > 20, Qmax < 10; prostate volume < 80 cc) was performed. IPSS, Qmax were assessed preoperatively, at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The complications were classified according to the modified Clavien-Dindo grading system. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were included in the study: 70 underwent MEP and 64 - TURP for BPH (mean prostate volumes were comparable with p = 0.163). The mean surgery time was 44 min in the TURP group and 48.2 min in the MEP group, (p = 0.026). Catheterization time for MEP was 1.7 and 3.2 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Hospital stay for MEP was 3.2 days vs. 4.8 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Both techniques shown comparable efficiency in benign prostatic obstruction relief with IPSS drop in MEP from 23.1 to 5.9 and in TURP group from 22.8 to 7.3, whereas Qmax increased from 8.2 to 20.5 after MEP and from 8.3 and 19.9 after TURP. Urinary incontinence rate after catheter removal in TURP group was 9.0% and 7.8% in MEP group, at 1 year follow-up, it was 1.4% and 3.1% in MEP and TURP, respectively (p = 0.466). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience demonstrated that MEP is an effective and safe BPH treatment option combining the efficacy of endoscopic enucleation techniques and accessibility of conventional TURP.

How to optimise urinary continence in anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate?

The traditional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is considered as gold-standard surgical treatment to relieve symptoms resulting from bladder outlet obstruction by prostate enlargement. However, with the advances of novel laser technologies and more experienced surgeon conquering the steep learning curve, anatomical endoscopic enucleation of prostate (AEEP) has become a more popular alternative surgical technique. Although AEEP has compatible functional outcome, less blood loss, shorter catheterisation duration and hospital stay, the risk of post-operative urinary incontinence (UI) is often an issue of concern. In this review, we focus on discussion about risk factors related to increased incidence of UI, some surgical tips to avoid damaging external urinary sphincter and treatment strategies to facilitate recovery of urinary continence after surgery.

Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: The next gold standard? Yes!

Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP) differs from other surgical techniques for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) in that it removes the entire benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) component of the prostate. We summarise the main advantages of AEEP compared to other surgical techniques for BPO. These include better urodynamic relief of bladder outlet obstruction, superior outcomes for urinary retention even in the presence of impaired detrusor contractility, safe and effective for any size prostate, and superior durability compared to vaporisation and resection techniques. We summarise evidence that suggests AEEP offers outcomes that are independent of patient age and prostate volume. We conclude that AEEP is the gold standard surgical treatment for men with either lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention, regardless of prostate volume, detrusor contractility and age. It offers the ability to safely and effectively treat a wider range of patients than any other BPO procedure. More widespread use of mentorship programmes, that take advantage of the growing number of experienced mentors, is recommended to train more urologists in AEEP.