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.

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.

Bipolar vs monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: evaluation of the impact on overall sexual function in an international randomized controlled trial setting.

UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: The effect of TURP on overall sexual function and particularly erectile function (EF) is controversial with conflicting results based on a low level of evidence. The effects of monopolar and bipolar TURP (M-TURP and B-TURP, respectively) on EF are similar, as has been shown in a few non-focused randomized control trials (RCTs). For the first time, the present study offers focused results of a comparative evaluation of the effects of B-TURP and M-TURP on overall sexual function, as quantified with the International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire (IIEF-15) in an international, multicentre, double-blind RCT setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP and B-TURP, respectively) using a true bipolar system, for the first time in an international multicentre double-blind randomized controlled trial focusing on the overall sexual function quantified with the International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire (IIEF-15). Other baseline/perioperative parameters potentially influencing erectile function (EF) after TURP were secondarily investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2006 to June 2009, consecutive TURP candidates with benign prostatic obstruction were prospectively recruited in four academic urological centres, randomized 1:1 into M-TURP/B-TURP arms and followed up at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months after surgery. In all, 295 eligible patients were enrolled. Overall sexual function was quantified using self-administered IIEF-15 at baseline and at each subsequent visit. Total IIEF/domain scores were calculated and EF score classified erectile dysfunction severity. Differences in erectile dysfunction severity at each visit compared with baseline (EF evolution), classified patients into 'improved', 'stable' or 'deteriorated'. Pre-postoperative IIEF/domain scores and differences in the distribution of EF evolution were compared between arms throughout follow-up. RESULTS: In all, 279 patients received the allocated intervention; 218/279 patients (78.1%) provided complete IIEF-15 data at baseline and were considered in sexual function analysis. Complete IIEF-15 data were available from 193/218 (88.5%), 186/218 (85.3%) and 179/218 (82.1%) patients at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months, respectively. Sexual function did not differ significantly between arms during follow-up (scores: IIEF, P = 0.750; EF, P = 0.636; orgasmic function, P = 0.868; sexual desire, P = 0.735; intercourse satisfaction, P = 0.917; overall satisfaction, P = 0.927). Resection type was not a predictor of any sexual function changes observed. Distribution of EF evolution did not differ between arms at any time (M-TURP vs B-TURP at 12 months: improved, 23/87 [26.4%] vs 18/92 [19.6%]; stable, 53/87 [60.9%] vs 56/92 [60.8%]; deteriorated, 11/87 [12.7%] vs 18/92 [19.6%]; P = 0.323). CONCLUSION: There were no differences between M-TURP/B-TURP in any aspect of sexual function.

Midterm results from an international multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing bipolar with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate.

BACKGROUND: Pooled data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with short-term follow-up have shown a safety advantage for bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) compared with monopolar TURP (M-TURP). However, RCTs with follow-up >12 mo are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To compare the midterm safety/efficacy of B-TURP versus M-TURP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From July 2006 to June 2009, TURP candidates with benign prostatic obstruction were consecutively recruited in four centres, randomised 1:1 into the M-TURP or the B-TURP arm and regularly followed up to 36 mo postoperatively. A total of 295 patients were enrolled. INTERVENTION: M-TURP or B-TURP using the AUTOCON II 400 electrosurgical unit. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Safety was estimated by complication rates with a special emphasis on urethral strictures (US) and bladder neck contractures (BNCs) recorded during the short-term (up to 12 mo) and midterm (up to 36 mo) follow-up. Efficacy quantified by changes in maximum urine flow rate, postvoid residual urine volume, and International Prostate Symptom Score was compared with baseline, and reintervention rates in each arm were also evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 279 patients received treatment after allocation. Mean follow-up was 28.8 mo. A total of 186 of 279 patients (66.7%) completed the 36-mo follow-up. Posttreatment withdrawal rates did not differ significantly between arms. Safety was assessed in 230 patients (82.4%) at a mean follow-up of 33.4 mo. Ten US cases were seen in each arm (M-TURP vs B-TURP: 9.3% vs 8.2%; p=0.959); two versus eight BNC cases (M-TURP vs B-TURP: 1.9% vs 6.6%; p=0.108) were collectively detected at the midterm follow-up. Resection type was not a significant predictor of the risk of US/BNC formation. Efficacy was similar between arms and durable. A total of 10 of 230 patients (4.3%) experienced failure to cure and needed reintervention without significant differences between arms. High overall reintervention rates, withdrawal rates, and sample size determination not based on US/BNC rates represent potential limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The midterm safety and efficacy of B-TURP and M-TURP are comparable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR703 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=703).

Results from an international multicentre double-blind randomized controlled trial on the perioperative efficacy and safety of bipolar vs monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative efficacy and safety of bipolar (B-) and monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP) in an international multicentre double-blind randomized controlled trial using the bipolar system AUTOCON(®) II 400 ESU for the first time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From July 2006 to June 2009, consecutive transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) candidates with benign prostatic obstruction were prospectively recruited in four academic urological centres, randomized 1:1 into an M-TURP or B-TURP arm and followed up for 6 weeks after surgery. A total of 295 eligible patients were enrolled. Of these, 279 patients received treatment (M-TURP, n= 138; B-TURP, n= 141) and were analysed for immediate postoperative outcomes and perioperative safety. In all, 268 patients (M-TURP, n= 129; B-TURP, n= 139) were analysed for efficacy, which was quantified using changes in maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual urine volume and International Prostate Symptom Score at 6 weeks compared with baseline. Safety was estimated using sodium and haemoglobin level changes immediately after surgery and perioperative complication occurrence graded according to the modified Clavien classification system. Secondary outcomes included operation-resection time, resection rate, capsular perforation and catheterization time. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between each study arm except that postoperative decreases in sodium levels favoured B-TURP (-0.8 vs -2.5 mmol/L, for B-TURP and M-TURP, respectively; P= 0.003). The lowest values were 131 mmol/L (B-TURP) and 106 mmol/L (M-TURP). Nine patients ranged between 125 and 130 mmol/L and the values for three patients were <125 mmol/L after M-TURP. The greatest decrease was 9 mmol/L after B-TURP (two patients). In nine patients (M-TURP) the decrease was between 9 and 34 mmol/L. These results were not translated into a significant difference in TUR-syndrome rates (1/138: 0.7% vs 0/141: 0.0%, for M-TURP and B-TURP, respectively; P= 0.495). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the previous available evidence, no clinical advantage for B-TURP was shown. Perioperative efficacy, safety and secondary outcomes were comparable between study arms. The potentially improved safety of B-TURP that is attributed to the elimination of dilutional hyponatraemia risk, a risk still present with M-TURP, did not translate into a significant clinical benefit in experienced hands.