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.

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.

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.

Thulium Fiber Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Prospective Study of Mid- and Long-Term Outcomes in 1328 Patients.

Objective: The objective of our study was to estimate the long-term efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP). Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients who underwent ThuFLEP due to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Both the pre- and perioperative data as well as the follow-up data for 3 years were evaluated: prostate volume, postvoid residual (PVR), maximum flow rate (Qmax), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), prostate-specific antigen level, and the complication rate. Intraoperative data relating to the weight of resected tissue, the duration of surgery, catheterization, and data on hospital stays were also collected. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess whether older patients (>65 years) or those with larger glands (>80 cc) are prone to increased complication risks. Results: A total of 1328 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 66.9 ± 7.5 years. Mean prostate volume was 86.9 ± 41.9 (20-330) cc. All the functional parameters (IPSS, QoL, PVR, Qmax) significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.05) and showed durable improvement up to 3 years of follow-up. The frequency of late complications was as follows: stress urinary incontinence-1.2%; urethral stricture-1.1%; and bladder neck contracture-0.9%. Subgroup analyses revealed increased urinary tract infection frequency in older patients (3.5% vs 0.8%, p = 0.003) as well as higher rate of stress urinary incontinence (0.4% vs 1.8%, p = 0.002) and higher rate of clot retention (11.3% vs 4.4%, p < 0.001) in those with larger glands. Conclusions: Irrespective of the patient's age and prostate volume, ThuFLEP represents an effective and durable technique of endoscopic enucleation characterized by a low incidence of complications after 3 years of follow-up. In the hands of an experienced surgeon, ThuFLEP can rightly be a promising alternative to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for treatment of LUTS associated with BPO.

Enucleation vs. vaporization of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a head-to-head comparison of the various outcomes and complications. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Vaporization of the prostate (VP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are reliable and frequently used methods for BPO relief. Both surgeries utilize lasers and EAU recommends them in similar patient cohorts. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative results of patients who had undergone VP and EEP. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was performed in three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus). The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero, CRD42020204739. Primary outcomes were functional results (IPSS, QoL, PVR, Qmax), and secondary outcomes were intraoperative results, postoperative PSA and prostate volume, complications, and recurrence rate. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: VP required less operative time compared to EEP, mean difference -5.51 (95% CI -7.52; -3.50). IPSS and Qmax for VP were worse after 12-month follow-up, mean difference 0.89 (95% CI 0.52; 1.27) and -3.7 (95% CI -4.56; -2.85), respectively, while QoL did not differ significantly. Postoperative PSA level was higher in the VP group, mean difference 2.28 (95% CI 2.00; 2.55). VP was associated with reduced Clavien-Dindo grade I (OR=4.16; 95% CI 2.96; 5.84) and grade II (OR=3.79; 95% CI 2.25; 6.39) complication rate, especially in terms of the percentage of blood transfusion and transient urinary incontinence. The rate of complications grade IIIa and higher was similar (3-6%). Reoperation rate was only estimated in one study and was significantly higher in the PVP group at 60 months of follow-up, 2.7% vs. 0%, P<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: EEP and VP share the efficacy and safety in BPH management. Our meta-analysis shows comparable complication rate in Clavien-Dindo III, VP superiority in operation time, and EEP superiority in long-term functional outcomes and PSA reduction.