Perioperative antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing endoscopic urologic surgery: where do we stand with current literature?

The number of patients on chronic anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy requiring endoscopic urological surgery is increasing worldwide. Therefore, there is a strong demand to standardize the perioperative treatment of this cohort of patients, both from a surgical and cardiological point of view, balancing the risks of bleeding versus thrombosis, and the important possible clinical and medical legal repercussions therein. Although literature is scarce and the quality of evidence quite low, in line with other surgical specialties, guidelines and recommendations for the management of urological patients have begun to emerge. The aim of this review is to analyze current available literature and evidence on the most common endoscopic procedures performed in this high-risk group of patients, focusing on the perioperative management. In particular, to analyze the most frequently performed endoscopic procedures for the treatment of benign prostate enlargement (transurethral resection of the prostate, Thulium, Holmium and greenlight laser prostatectomy), bladder cancer (transurethral resection of the bladder), upper urinary tract urothelial cancer, and nephrolithiasis. Despite the lack of randomized studies, regardless of individual patient considerations, studies would support continuation of acetylsalicylic acid, which is recommended by cardiologists, in patients with intermediate/high risk of coronary thrombosis. In contrast, multiple studies found that bridging with light weight molecular weight heparin can potentially lead to more bleeding than continuation of the anticoagulant(s) and antiplatelet therapy, and caution with bridging is advised. All urologists should familiarize themselves with emerging guidelines and recommendations, and always be prepared to discuss specific cases or scenarios in a dedicated multidisciplinary team.

From "gold standard" resection to reproducible "future standard" endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: what we know about anatomical enucleation.

BACKGROUND: Open prostatectomy (OP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) have traditionally been the most common surgical approaches for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia causing bladder outlet obstruction and have certainly passed the test of time. In time, many endoscopic surgical procedures have been described as an alternative mini-invasive treatment. Holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) guaranteed functional outcomes similar to OP and TURP with lower perioperative complication rates for any prostate size. With the development of different kinds of lasers (such as thulium, "green light" and diode) and bipolar energy, the feasibility of endoscopic enucleation using these energies has been explored. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: In this paper, recent techniques to perform true prostate enucleation have been reviewed through a search of PubMed and Web of Science, including articles published in the last 20 years in clinical journals. The review is based on a peer-review process of the authors after a structured data search. Search terms included "Thulium prostate enucleation, THULEP, TmLEP/Tm Yag enucleation" OR "Greenlight enucleation/prostate enucleation/vapo-enucleation/KTP prostate enucleation, PVP prostate enucleation, GreenLep/" OR "bipolar prostate enucleation" OR "HoLEP, Holmium prostate enucleation" OR "monopolar prostate enucleation" OR "Diode prostate enucleation" OR "DiLEP" OR "Eraser prostate enucleation" OR "ELEP". EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Following the example of HoLEP, many techniques have been described in the literature using a variety of energy sources and instruments either in a pure enucleative or a hybrid (mixed) fashion. However, the levels of evidence are too low and follow-up still too short to offer solid recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP has become the conceptual and practical paradigm for the wide spread of enucleation thanks to the evidence provided by the literature and excellent outcomes. Higher level of evidence is required to assess efficacy of alternative enucleative techniques.