Adoption and Outcomes of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utilization of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) using a large real-world cohort. We compare the safety, readmission, and retreatment rates of HoLEP to other widely used endoscopic surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) including transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), photoselective vaporization of the prostate, and prostatic urethral lift. METHODS: Men who underwent endoscopic treatments for BPH from 2000 to 2019 were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database (n = 218,793). We compared the relative proportion of each procedure performed and annual physician volume data to identify trends in adoption and utilization. Readmission and retreatment rates were determined at both 30- and 90-days postoperation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between procedure type and outcomes. RESULTS: HoLEP accounted for 3.2% (n = 6967) of all the BPH procedures performed between 2000 and 2019 and increased from 1.1% of the procedures in 2008 to 4% in 2019. Patients undergoing HoLEP had lower odds of 90-days readmission compared to TURP (Odds ratio (OR) 0.87, p = 0.025). HoLEP had similar odds of retreatment compared to TURP at both 1-year (OR 0.96, p = 0.7) and 2-years (OR 0.98, p = 0.9), while patients undergoing photoselective vaporization of the prostate and prostatic urethral lift were more likely to retreat within 2-years (OR 1.20, P < 0.001; OR 1.87, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: HoLEP is a safe therapy for BPH with lower readmission and comparable retreatment rates to the gold standard TURP. Despite this, the utilization of HoLEP has lagged behind other endoscopic procedures and remains low.

Real-world practice in Peyronie's disease management: Results from a national survey of urologists.

BACKGROUND: Despite many available treatments for Peyronie's disease (PD), practice patterns of available therapeutics are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a national survey of urologists to characterize real-world practice patterns of PD management and to characterize the use of therapies discouraged by the American Urological Association guidelines on PD management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 34-item survey was distributed via RedCap to urologists who treat patients with PD in all American Urological Association sections. Questions elicited demographic information as well as practices in the diagnosis and treatment of PD. Comparisons were made with Pearson's chi-squared test. The primary outcome was reported use of therapies discouraged by the American Urological Association guidelines on PD. RESULTS: A total of 145 respondents completed the survey, of whom 19% were fellowship trained in andrology/sexual medicine, 36% practiced in an academic setting, and 50% had at least 20 years in practice. Only 60% of respondents reporting performing in-office curvature assessment prior to commencing intralesional injection or surgical treatment, with higher prevalence in andrology/sexual medicine fellowship-trained versus non-fellowship-trained urologists (85% vs. 54%, p = 0.003). The most popular treatment modalities were collagenase clostridium histolyticum (61% of respondents), phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (54%), and penile traction (53%). Twenty-one percent of respondents reported currently using a treatment that is explicitly discouraged by the American Urological Association guidelines (extracorporeal shockwave therapy for curvature, L-carnitine, omega-3 fatty acids, or vitamin E). DISCUSSION: Patients seeking PD treatment may be offered different therapies, some of which are not evidence-based, depending on the treating urologist. This study is limited by self-selection and response bias. Its strength is that it represents a cross-sectional overview of real-world practice patterns in PD management, which has not been previously described. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of urologists reported PD management practices that are not evidence-based and not guideline-supported.