Long-Term Outcomes of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A 5-Year Single-Center Experience.

Objective: To analyze the long-term efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Materials and Methods: A total of 127 patients who underwent HoLEP at our institution between 2013 and 2015 were included. Patients were observed for 5 years postoperatively. We evaluated the length of the surgery, the mass of the removed tissue, prostate-specific antigen level, the maximal flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR), the length of catheterization and hospitalization, and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and IPSS quality of life (QoL) at each clinic visit. Results: PVR, Qmax, IPSS, and QoL all improved significantly immediately after the operation (p < 0.001). By the end of the 5th postoperative year, all the parameters showed a statistically meaningful decline: Qmax reduced by 5.8 mL/s (22.6%) and IPSS by 1.4 points (29.1%). Around 8.6% of the patients continued therapy with α-blockers. There were no differences in efficacy by the age of the patients or the volume of the prostate. Long-term complications and need for repeat operations were not affected by the volume of the prostate or patient age. Conclusions: The improvement of PVR, Qmax, IPSS, and QoL score seen in the early postoperative period after performing HoLEP remains evident at 5 years postoperatively. Long-term complications and the need for reoperation do not depend on the age of the patient or on the initial volume of the prostate.

Monopolar enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for small- and medium-sized (< 80 cc) benign prostate hyperplasia: a prospective analysis.

AIM: To assess efficacy and safety of monopolar enucleation of the prostate (MEP) and to compare it with the current treatment standard for medium-sized prostates, < 80 cc, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: A prospective analysis patients undergoing a surgical procedure for their diagnosis of BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) (IPSS > 20, Qmax < 10; prostate volume < 80 cc) was performed. IPSS, Qmax were assessed preoperatively, at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The complications were classified according to the modified Clavien-Dindo grading system. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were included in the study: 70 underwent MEP and 64 - TURP for BPH (mean prostate volumes were comparable with p = 0.163). The mean surgery time was 44 min in the TURP group and 48.2 min in the MEP group, (p = 0.026). Catheterization time for MEP was 1.7 and 3.2 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Hospital stay for MEP was 3.2 days vs. 4.8 days for TURP (p < 0.001). Both techniques shown comparable efficiency in benign prostatic obstruction relief with IPSS drop in MEP from 23.1 to 5.9 and in TURP group from 22.8 to 7.3, whereas Qmax increased from 8.2 to 20.5 after MEP and from 8.3 and 19.9 after TURP. Urinary incontinence rate after catheter removal in TURP group was 9.0% and 7.8% in MEP group, at 1 year follow-up, it was 1.4% and 3.1% in MEP and TURP, respectively (p = 0.466). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience demonstrated that MEP is an effective and safe BPH treatment option combining the efficacy of endoscopic enucleation techniques and accessibility of conventional TURP.

Novel thulium fiber laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A prospective comparison with conventional transurethral resection of the prostate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel thulium fiber laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with smaller glands (<80 cc). METHODS: A total of 51 patients underwent thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate, and 52 patients underwent monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate. All patients were assessed preoperatively, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively (International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urine flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score-quality of life). Preoperative prostate volumes and prostate-specific antigen levels were comparable (P = 0.543 and P = 0.078, respectively). The complications were graded according to the Clavien classification. RESULTS: Mean surgery time was longer in the thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate group (46.6 ± 10.2 vs 39.9 ± 8.6 min, P < 0.001), while catheterization and hospital stay were greater in the transurethral resection of the prostate group (P < 0.001). At 12 months, there were no differences in functional outcomes (International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urine flow rate). Despite comparable prostate volumes at 12 months (P = 0.864), the prostate-specific antigen level in the thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate group (0.5 ± 0.5 ng/mL) was lower than in the transurethral resection of the prostate group (1.1 ± 1.0 ng/mL; P < 0.001). Hemoglobin and serum sodium decrease was lower in the thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate group (1.01 ± 0.4 g/dL and 1.1 ± 1.1 mmol/L) than in the transurethral resection of the prostate group (1.8 ± 0.8 g/dL and 4.1 ± 1.1 mmol/L; P < 0.001). Urinary incontinence rates at 12 months were comparable (P = 0.316). CONCLUSIONS: Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate with novel thulium fiber laser in patients with smaller prostate glands (<80 cc) is comparable to transurethral resection of the prostate in voiding parameters improvement and complication rates. At the same time, the technique allows for a more substantial prostate-specific antigen decrease, indicating more complete removal of adenoma.

Impact of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate with thulium fiber laser on the erectile function.

BACKGROUND: The impact of number of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate techniques (holmium laser enucleation - HoLEP for example) on erectile function have already been investigated. However, the thulium-fiber laser, in this setting remains unstudied. In this study, we compared sexual function outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treated with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or thulium-fiber laser enucleation (ThuFLEP). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent transurethral resection and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate for BPH; inclusion criteria was the presence of infravesical obstruction (IPSS > 20, Qmax < 10 mL/s). Erectile function (EF) was assessed using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) both prior to endoscopic examination, and six months after. RESULTS: A total of 469 patients with BPH were included in the study; of these, 211 underwent to ThuFLEP, and 258 TURP. Preoperative IIEF-5 in TURP and ThuFLEP groups were 11.7 (±4.5) and 11.1 (±5.0), respectively (p = 0.17). At six month the IIEF-5 score was unchanged (p = 0.26 and p = 0.08) and comparable in both groups (p = 0.49). However, mean IIEF-5 score shown significant increase of 0.72 in ThuFLEP group, comparing to decrease of 0.24 in TURP patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both TURP and ThuFLEP are effective modalities in the management of infravesical obstruction due to BPH. At six months follow-up after surgery, both techniques lead to comparable IIEF-5 score. However, our results demonstrated that the ThuFLEP is more likely to preserve the erectile function leading to increase of IIEF-5 at six months in contrast to TURP which lead to slight drop in IIEF-5 score.

A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach-Initial Results.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the differences in the learning curve associated with different techniques of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups (30 patients in each): HoLEP, ThuFLEP or MEP. Inclusion criteria for the study included prostate volume <80 cc, IPSS > 20, or Qmax < 10. The EEPs were performed by 3 surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate. Assignment of surgeons to surgical technique was also randomized. None of the surgeons had prior experience in EEP. RESULTS: ThuFLEP was slightly superior (with no significant difference [P > .05]) to HoLEP and MEP in terms of overall enucleation rate-1.0 g/min vs 0.8 g/min and 0.7 g/min, respectively. We observed similar enucleation rates at the initial stages of training (first 20 surgeries) with insignificant increase in ThuFLEP efficiency. At next 10 surgeries ThuFLEP and HoLEP efficiency were higher than of MEP (P < .001) without significant difference between techniques of laser EEP (P = .07). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate can be adopted safely and effectively within 30 surgeries if the technique is learned with a mentoring approach. EEP is shown to be safe and effective even in the initial stages of learning. Laser EEP (HoLEP, ThuFLEP) appears to lend itself to quicker adaptation compared MEP.