[Prostatic Urethral Lift under local anesthesia: Single-centre retrospective observational study]. / La pose d'implant UroLift ® sous anesthésie locale : étude observationnelle rétrospective monocentrique.

INTRODUCTION: Urolift implant placement may be preferred to conventional endoscopic surgery for patients who wish to preserve their sexuality or for those who prefer a rapid post-operative recovery. The absence of general anaesthesia is an important element that reinforces the minimally invasive aspect of the procedure and improves the speed of recovery. The aim of this work was to report our preliminary experience of Urolift treatment under local anaesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted including all patients treated with Urolift between 2017 and 2021 in our centre. Local anaesthesia was based on the instillation of 2 Xylocaine gels at 4°C into the urethra 15minutes before the procedure. The primary endpoint was the successful completion of the procedure without interruption due to pain or the need for any other form of anaesthesia or analgesia. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were included with a median age of 65 years and a prostate volume of 46mL. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 23. The first 3 patients were operated on under general anaesthesia. Local anaesthesia was introduced from the fourth patient onwards. There was no recourse to other modalities of analgesia or anaesthesia or interruption of the procedure. The operating time was 10minutes and pain was assessed at 1 on a visual analogue scale. At 3 months, the IPSS score was 9 (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: This preliminary experience confirms the feasibility of placing the Urolift implant under local anaesthesia without any failure of the proposed management. The improvement in IPSS score was consistent with previously published clinical trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

[Safety of Hyperthermic IntraVEsical Chemotherapy (HIVEC) for BCG Unresponsive Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients]. / Tolérance de la thermo-chimiothérapie par HIVEC® chez les patients réfractaires au BCG.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing evidence that Hyperthermic Intravesical Chemotherapy is an effective treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). HIVEC (COMBAT BRS system) is an innovative hyperthermia delivering device. The aim of our study is to evaluate tolerance and safety of HIVEC in patients with BCG-refractory NMIBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we included 22 patients between January 2017 and April 2018. The treatment consisted in a weekly instillation of Hyperthermic Mitomycin for a total of 6 weeks, with a follow-up every 3 months. In order to evaluate the tolerance, patients filled a questionnaire before each instillation. We analyzed collected data to evaluate safety and efficiency of the treatment after one year. RESULTS: Among 22 patients included, no patient suffered from severe side effects. The minor side effects reported were : urinary urgency (40,1 %), urinary pain (40,1%), macroscopic hematuria (4,5%). The IPSS score didn't significantly varied before and after instillations (mean IPSS: 10.8 versus 10.1, p=0.77). The mean follow-up was 11.2 months. The recurrence rate was 27,3% with an average time to recurrence of 7.36 months. Two patients (9.1%) presented a progression to muscle-invasive disease. Four patients (18,2%) had a radical cystectomy. CONCLUSION: Hyperthermic Mitomycin using the HIVEC® device is a rather safe and well tolerated treatment. Efficiency remains partial as 27.3% of patients experienced recurrence during the first year. These data should be confirmed by prospective multicentric studies.

[Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: Indication, technique and results]. / Énucléation endoscopique de la prostate : indications, techniques et résultats.

INTRODUCTION: Laser prostatic enucleation is an increasingly popular technique among surgical urology. It is now gradually becoming a contender for gold standard surgical treatments, trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is based on data collected from sources published between June 1995 and June 2017. Medline and Embase database have been used to research the following keywords: Holmium; Thulium; Greenlight; Laser; Prostate; Enucleation; Benign prostatic obstruction; Surgical technique. RESULTS: With HoLEP process, catheterization time varies from 17,7hrs to 46,4hrs with 2 to 2.5 hospitalization days. With ThuLEP process, catheterization time varies from 2 to 2.5 days with 2.15 to 6.5 hospitalization days. With GreenLEP process, catheterization and hospitalization times are both 2 days. IPSS score after a year varies from 12.7 to 19.1 points in different publications. CONCLUSION: Convincing results of Laser prostatic enucleation make it a valid alternative to existing treatments.