Endoscopic enucleation for prostate larger than 60 mL: comparison between holmium laser enucleation and plasmakinetic enucleation.

PURPOSE: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of two different energy sources, holmium laser and bipolar current for endoscopic enucleation of prostate larger than 60 mL. METHODS: A prospective, monocentric, comparative, non-randomized study was conducted including all patients treated for prostate larger than 60 mL, measured by transrectal ultrasound. Patients were assigned to each group based on the surgeons' practice. Perioperative data were collected (preoperative characteristics, operating, catheterization and hospitalization times, hemoglobin loss, complications) and functional outcomes (IPSS, IPSS Quality of Life (QoL), PSA) at 3 months and 1 year. RESULTS: 100 patients were included in each group from October 2015 to March 2018. No differences between HoLEP and plasma groups were observed at baseline, except for mean IPSS score, IPSS QoL score and preoperative PVR that were significantly higher in the HoLEP group. Operating time (142.1 vs 122.4 min; p = 0.01), catheterization time (59.6 vs 44.4 h; p = 0.01) and hospitalization time (2.5 vs 1.8 days; p = 0.02) were significantly shorter in the plasma group. Complication and transfusion rate were no significantly different between HoLEP and plasma. No significant differences were observed concerning functional outcomes at 3 months and 1 year. The urinary incontinence rate was higher 21.1% vs 6.4% (p < 0.01) at 3 months in HoLEP group, but no difference was observed at 1 year. CONCLUSION: Holmium and plasma are both safe and effective for endoscopic treatment for prostate larger than 60 mL. Operating, catheterization and hospitalization times were significantly shorter in the plasma group. The complication rate and functional outcomes were not significantly different.

[Transurethral resection (TUR) in saline plasma vaporization of the prostate versus standard TUR of the prostate: an economic evaluation]. / Étude comparant les coûts hospitaliers de la résection monopolaire et de la vaporisation bipolaire de la prostate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the hospital costs of the transurethral resection in saline plasma vaporization of the prostate (TURis-PVP) and the standard TUR of the prostate (TURP). BACKGROUND: their efficiency and short terms outcomes are similar. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an observational retrospective and monocentric study, 86 consecutive patients with benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were enrolled in two non randomized groups. TURP was performed in 44 cases and TURis-PVP in 42 cases. Patients with prostate cancer, urethral stenosis or bladder neck stenosis were not included. Hospital costs with a 3-month follow-up were measured using the database and hospital cost accounting system of the Medical Information Department. RESULTS: Patients from both series had similar preoperative characteristics concerning the age, ASA score, urologic history, and antithrombosis treatments. Catheterization period, complications and rehospitalisation rates were similar. With TURis-PVP, prostatic volume was larger (60±24mL vs. 42±16mL; P<0.05), hospital stay was shorter (4.0±2.8days vs. 4.4±2.1days; P<0.05), single-used materials costs were higher (332±64€ vs. 40±18€; P<0.05). The costs of the first hospitalization were 3721±843€ with TURis-PVP and were 3712±880€ with TURP (P=0.14). Global costs with a 3-month follow-up were 3867±1104€ with TURis-PVP and were 4074±1624€ with TURP (P=0.53). CONCLUSION: In this study, the costs for the hospital are lightly higher in TURis-PVP, due to single use systems, but there is no significant difference for global costs between TURP and TURis-PVP with a 3-month follow-up difference for the health care system.

Influence of digital rectal massage on urinary prostate-specific antigen: interest for the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Following radical prostatectomy, urinary prostate-specific antigen (uPSA) may originate from periurethral glands or from recurrent carcinomatous prostatic cells. We evaluated massage of the urethro-vesical anastomosis as a uPSA-releasing method for the detection of local recurrence. METHODS: PSA was assessed (PSA IMx, Abbott Diagnostic, Rungis, France) in serum and in the first voided urine before and after massage in 59 patients: 7 after cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer, 22 with prostate in situ, and 30 after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. RESULTS: No significant changes of uPSA were induced by the massage in cystoprostatectomy patients and in 4 radical prostatectomy patients with a negative biopsy of the anastomosis. In contrast, a significant increase of uPSA was observed after massage in the patients with prostate in situ and in 6 radical prostatectomy patients with biopsy-proven local relapse. CONCLUSIONS: uPSA before and after massage of the prostatic fossa may constitute a new and efficient tool for the detection of local recurrence, if these preliminary results are confirmed on a larger scale.