Safety profile of treatment with greenlight versus Thulium Laser for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: The major strengths of surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with laser are reduced morbidity compared to endoscopic resection. No studies analysed the different risk of intra/peri-operative events between patients undergoing Thulium and GreenLight procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 100 consecutive cases undergoing GreenLight vaporization and Thulium procedures performed during the learning curve of two expert endoscopic surgeons. Pre-operative data, intra and post-operative events at 90 days were analysed. RESULTS: Patients on antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy were pre-dominant in the Green group (p < 0.0001). Rates of blood transfusion (p < 0.0038), use of resectoscope (p < 0.0086), and transient stress urinary incontinence were statistically higher in the Thulium group. On the contrary conversions to TURP (p < 0.023) were more frequent in GreenLight patients. Readmissions were more frequently necessary in GreenLight group (24%) vs. Thulium group (26.6%). The overall complication rate in GreenLight and Thulium groups were 31% and 53% respectively; Clavien 3b complications were 13% in Thulium patients versus 1% in GreenLight patients. CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight and Thulium treatments show similar safety profiles. Randomized controlled trial are needed to better clarify the rate of major complications in Thulium group, and the incidence of post-operative storage symptoms in these patients' populations.

Post-Operative Acute Urinary Retention After Greenlight Laser. Analysis of Risk Factors from A Multicentric Database.

PURPOSE: Greenlight laser is a mini-invasive technique used to treat Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO). Some of the advantages of GreenLight photoselective vaporization (PVP) are shorter catheterization time and hospital stay compared to TURP. Post-operative acute urinary retention (pAUR) leads to patients' discomfort, prolonged hospital stay and increased health care costs. We analyzed risk factors for urinary retention after GreenLight laser PVP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter experience, we retrospectively analyzed the onset of early and late post-operative acute urinary retention in patients undergoing standard or anatomical PVP. The pre-, intra- and post-operative characteristics were compared betweene patients who started to void and the patients who developed post-operative urinary retention. RESULTS: The study included 434 patients suitable for the study. Post-operative acute urinary retention occurred in 39 (9%). Patients with a lower prostate volume (P < .001), an adenoma volume lower than 40 mL (P < .001), and lower lasing time (P = .013) had a higher probability to develop pAUR at the univariate analysis. The multivariate logistic regression confirmed that lower lasing time (95% CI: 0.86-0.99, OR = 0.93, P = .046) and adenoma volume (95% CI: 0.89-0.98, OR = 0.94, P = .006) are correlated to pAUR. Furthermore IPSS ≥ 19 (95% CI: 1.19- 10.75, OR = 2.27, P = .023) and treatment with 5-ARI (95% CI: 1.05-15.03, OR = 3.98, P = .042) are risk factors for pAUR. CONCLUSION: In our series, post-operative acute urinary retention was related to low adenoma volume and lasing time, pre-operative IPSS ≥ 19 and 5-ARI intake. These data should be considered in deciding the best timing for urethral catheters removal.

Operative profile, safety and functional outcomes after GreenLight laser prostate surgery: results from a 12 months follow-up multicenter Italian cohort analyses.

BACKGROUND: Over the two past decades, GreenLight laser therapy has been considered a valid alternative for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia/benign prostatic obstruction (BPH/BPO). However, the debate on the effectiveness of laser therapy compared to conventional techniques is still open. The aim of our study is to analyze and describe the use of GreenLight laser prostate surgery in Italy, with regard to the surgical techniques performed and the surgical and functional outcomes at mid-term follow-up. METHODS: From March 2012 to July 2018, patients who underwent GreenLight laser prostate surgery for LUTS due to BPH/BPO from 19 Italian centers were included. The following parameters were evaluated in the population: age, prostate volume, prostate adenoma volume, PSA tot, Qmax at uroflowmetry (UFM), International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS), previous therapy for LUTS, use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs. We recorded also the kind of anesthesia, mean laser time (min), mean irradiation time (min), TURP conversion/completion rate, postoperative day of catheter removal, postoperative acute urinary retention (AUR), hospital stay, variation of hematocrit (Ht) and hemoglobin levels (Hb). Early complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the re-operation rate within 30 days and after 30 days, the late complications and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement were also collected. Changes over time in terms of blood loss and functional outcomes (IPSS and Qmax at the UFM at 6 and 12 months) were tested with Student's test for paired samples. We assumed P≤0.05 as level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 1077 were enrolled in the study, 554 (56.4%) were treated with standard vaporization and 523 (48.6%) with anatomical vaporization. Student's t-test for paired samples showed no statistically significant differences in terms of reduction of Ht preoperative vs. Ht postoperative (42.80±3.91 vs. 39.93±5.35 95% CI P=0.3) and preintervention and postintervention Hb levels (14.28±1.46 vs. 13.72 P=0.35). Compared with the preoperative Qmax (8.60±2.64), the 6- and 12-month UFM showed a significant improvement [19.56±6.29, P<0.01 and 19.99±5.92 P<0.01]. In terms of IPSS variation, compared to the baseline level (22±5.51) the 6- and 12-month follow-up confirmed a significant reduction (8.01±4.41 P<0.01 and 5.81±4.12 P<0.01 respectively). Postoperative complications were CD0, CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4 in 33.0%,35.3%, 2.9%, 0.3%, and 0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the most numerous surgical series of GreenLight laser vaporization and with the longest follow-up. This technique should be considered as a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of secondary LUTS to BPH.

GreenLight Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate: One Laser for Different Prostate Sizes.

Introduction: GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate (photoselective vaporization of the prostate [PVP]) is a safe and effective procedure for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Long-term results and advantages of PVP in patients with large and symptomatic prostate are still under evaluation. Materials and Methods: In a multicenter experience, patients who underwent standard or anatomical PVP were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with follow-up >12 months were divided into two groups based on prostate volume (<100 cc vs ≥100 cc). Pre- and perioperative data, as well as postoperative results and complications, were recorded after 3, 6, and 12 months and then annually. Results: One thousand and thirty-one patients were eligible, 916 of these had a prostate volume of <100 cc and 115 ≥ 100 cc. Median follow-up period was 25.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 16.5-35.0) and 16.0 months (IQR 12.0-24.0) in ≥100 and <100 groups, respectively. No difference was found in terms of catheterization time, postoperative stay, and postoperative acute urine retention. Patients with prostate ≥100 required longer operative time (75 vs 55 minutes), lasing time (41.7 vs 24.9 minutes), and higher energy used but lower energy density. Patients with prostate ≥100 had a higher incidence of early (50.4% vs 35.7%) and late complications (21.7% vs 12.8%) and early urge/incontinence symptoms (40.9% vs 29.3%). No statistically significant differences were found for the maximum urinary flow (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) results between the two groups. The reintervention rate in ≥100 group was 3.5% vs 2.3% in <100. Conclusions: In the midterm follow-up, GreenLight PVP guarantees the same results in different prostate volume groups. Early and late complications are more frequent in large prostates.

Perioperative major acute cardiovascular events after 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate.

BACKGROUND: Major acute cardiovascular events (MACE) prevalence after 180-W GreenLight (180-W GL) laser photoselective vaporization (PVP) have never been explored. Aim of our study is to evaluate perioperative MACE that occurred concomitantly with 180-W GL PVP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We relied on a multi-institutional database that included 14 centers. Data from 923 patients who underwent 180-W GL PVP were reviewed. We abstracted pre- and perioperative data of patients who experienced perioperative MACE, such as angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, other chronic ischemic heart disease, transient ischemic attack, or cerebrovascular accident as well as deep venous thrombosis with or without pulmonary embolism. We relied on a case-series format to report the main findings of our analyses. RESULTS: 18 (1.9%) patients reported MACE in 7 centers. Median age was 69.5 (IQR 66.0-79.2) years. Of all, 7 patients underwent standard PVP and 11 anatomical PVP. Eleven patients (61.1%) were not under anticoagulant/antiplatelet treatment, 6 (33.3%) were under low dose aspirin, and 1 (5.6%) was under clopidogrel. Four patients (22.2%) had an instrumental and laboratory diagnosis of myocardial infarction, 7 (38.9%) had an episode of angina pectoris with or without rhythm alteration, 3 (16.7%) reported symptomatic deep venous thrombosis, and 4 (22.2%) had other MACE-like events. CONCLUSIONS: Physician should take in consideration the possibility of MACE or MACE-like events. The real MACE rate may be different as only half of included centers reported MACE. Since the main target of laser surgery are high-risk bleeding patients, prospective observational trials focused on detection of these possible complications are warranted.

[History of laser in BPH therapy]. / Storia del Laser nella terapia dell'IPB.

Laser technology has been used in the treatment of BPH for more than 15-20 years in order to challenge transurethral resection of the prostate. The aim of this review article is to analyze the evolution of laser in BPH therapy, from early coagulative techniques - progressively abandoned for their elevated postoperative morbidity and unfavorable outcomes - to the newer techniques of vaporization, resection and enucleation of the prostate. A better comprehension of tissue-laser interactions, the improvement of laser technology and a growing clinical experience have lead to the development of different laser systems (Holmium, KTP, Thulium laser) that challenge TURP. Today, HoLEP and, secondarily, PVP are the laser techniques supported by more clinical evidences and represent valid alternatives to TURP.

High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU): a useful alternative choice in prostate cancer treatment. Preliminary results.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) represents an alternative choice in mini-invasive treatment of prostate cancer. The technology of the device used to perform the treatment allows to exactly destroy a pre-selected area and to save all the tissues around it. We report our experience on the effectiveness and complications of this tecnique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2006 to April 2007, 25 patients with prostate cancer were treated through Ablatherm (EDAP France) in spinal anesthesia. In the first six patients HIFU and TUR-P (Trans-Urethral Resection of Prostate) were performed in the same session and a suprapubic catheter was placed. In the other 14 patients HIFU was afterwards performed. In these patients a trans-urethral catheter was placed. All patients were divided into three groups: low risk (17 patients), intermediate risk (6 patients) and high risk (2 patients). The follow-up consisted in PSA evaluation after 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 months and in transrectal biopsy after six months. Complications related to the treatment, and symptomatological and sexual life tests were evaluated before and after the treatment. RESULTS: HIFU overall success rate was 84% (biochemical relapses in only 4 patients out of 25). Success rate was represented as follows: 94.2% in the low risk group, 83.4% in the intermediate risk group and 0% in the high risk group. No complications occurred during the treatment nor in the immediately post-operative time. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that HIFU represents a useful alternative choice in mini-invasive therapy of prostate cancer. Particularly, results are remarkable in localized (low-intermediate risk) and low morbility prostate cancer. The role of this procedure in high risk patients needs to be further evaluated. Transrectal HIFU represents a mini-invasive therapeutic option that makes the treatment of prostate cancer possible in 84% of cases. Our results agree with the literature data and demonstrate that the success of the procedure depends on the correct indication of treatment and is strictly related to progression risk parameters.

Randomized comparison of loops for transurethral resection of the prostate: preliminary results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and morbidity of standard transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and transurethral vaporesection (TUVRP) using four types of loops. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a one-to-one randomized study, 50 patients with lower urinary-tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic enlargement underwent TURP. Clinical data were collected using digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography for evaluation of prostate volume, IPSS and IIEF-5 questionnaires, and serum prostate specific antigen concentrations. Intraoperative blood loss and fluid absorption were evaluated by measuring serum hemoglobin and respiratory alcohol concentration. Patients were followed at 3 and 18 months with evaluation of clinical symptoms, flow rates, residual urine volumes, and complications. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in blood loss, intraoperative fluid absorption, procedure time, or weight of the resected tissue between standard TURP and TUVRP with the various loops. No significant complications (infections, urethral stricture, reintervention) were seen. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison of the clinical outcome and morbidity of standard TURP versus different loops for TUVRP, there were no significant differences in any of the parameters evaluated.

Massive hematuria after transurethral resection of the prostate: management by intra-arterial embolization.

A case of severe hemorrhage after TURP leading to hypovolemic shock and its successful management by superselective unilateral arterial embolization is described. The authors conclude that arterial embolization is a safe and effective procedure for severe prostatic hemorrhage that may be performed in selected cases when conservative means or fulguration of the prostatic fossa have failed to achieve the control of the bleeding. Adequate selection of the patients, correction of any underlying coagulation defects and a proper resection technique are surely the most important issues in preventing any postoperative bleeding.