Evaluation of the learning curve for Thulium fiber laser enucleation of prostate (ThuFLEP): retrospective study of a single-surgeon experience in real-world settings.

PURPOSE: To assess the learning curve of Thulium Fiber Laser Enucleation of prostate (ThuFLEP) of a single surgeon inexperienced in laser endoscopic enucleation of prostate (EEP). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients with benign prostate hyperplasia undergoing ThuFLEP at our center between January 2022 and August 2023 by one surgeon. Inclusion criteria were International Prostate Symptom Score > 7, prostate volume < 200 g, and maximal urinary flow rate < 15 mL/s. The surgeon was inexperienced in laser EEP and trained by watching educational videos of ThuFLEP before starting to perform the procedure under mentoring during the first 4 cases. Procedural data (enucleation and morcellation efficiency, complications) and functional results up to 3 months were evaluated. Patients were divided into 4 cohorts of 20 consecutive cases to evaluate outcomes evolution throughout time. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 69.9 years (SD 7.8) and mean prostate volume was 89.9 g (SD 25.8). Preoperative functional parameters were comparable between the groups. Mean enucleation efficiency (EE) ratio and morcellation efficiency (ME) ratio reached respectively 0.78 g/min (SD 0.55) and 2.49 g/min (SD 1.03) and both variables significantly increased from group 1 to group 3 (p < 0,001). Perioperative complications remained low throughout the caseload with similar significant 3-month functional improvements between all groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate ThuFLEP learning curve for a single surgeon inexperienced in laser EEP with limited mentoring. Under these real-world conditions, nearly 60 cases were needed to complete the learning curve with a complications rate remaining low throughout the training process.

Comparison of HoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: a propensity score-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) and Thulium fibre laser enucleation of prostate (ThuFLEP) by performing propensity score matched analysis (PSM). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the patients who underwent HoLEP (Group 1, n = 696), ThuLEP (Group 2, n = 146) and ThuFLEP (Group 3, n = 193) surgery because of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). A 1:1:1 HoLEP: ThuLEP: ThuFLEP group matching was performed using PSM analysis. Perioperative, postoperative functional outcomes and complications were analysed and compared. RESULTS: We observed significant improvement in functional parameters regarding IPSS, Qmax, PVR and quality of life in all groups compared to baseline values at the 1st, 6th and 12th postoperative months. There was no significant difference between different laser types in terms of urge (UUI) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 1st postoperative month. In all three groups, no patient had postoperative SUI or UUI at 6th and 12th postoperative months. In addition, no significant difference was observed between laser types in terms of postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: HoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP are safe and effective LEP methods with improvement in functional parameters and low complication rates. Similar results in terms of functional outcomes and complications clearly show that these surgeries are alternatives to each other for the patients with BPO. Experts' opinions, practices and enucleation techniques should also be taken into consideration when choosing a laser for BPO surgery.

The safety and efficacy of five surgical treatments in prostate enucleation: a network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to investigate the comparative outcomes of five different energy types on surgical efficacy and postoperative recovery in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia. METHODS: The literature was systematically reviewed on December 1st, 2023, encompassing studies retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases that incorporated clinical studies of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), Thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP), transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate (PKEP), diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) and thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in the treatment of prostatic hyperplasia. Two independent reviewers extracted study data and conducted quality assessments using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Network meta-analysis (NMA) was employed to indirectly analyze the outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) techniques. RESULTS: The study included a total of 38 studies, comprising 21 non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) and 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), incorporating five distinct techniques: holmium laser, Thulium:YAG laser, bipolar plasma, diode laser and thulium fiber laser. In comparing treatment durations, ThuLEP and HoLEP had shorter overall hospital stays than PKEP, while the enucleation time of ThuLEP and HoLEP was shorter than that of ThuFLEP. Moreover, the enucleation tissue weight of both thulium fiber laser and holmium laser was heavier than bipolar plasma. However, the analysis did not reveal any statistically significant variation in complications among the various types of enucleation. In postoperative follow-up, the IPSS at 3 months post-operation was superior in the Thulium:YAG laser group compared to the holmium laser group. The thulium fiber laser technique demonstrated significant advantages over other enucleation methods in terms of QoL and PVR at 12 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Theoretical properties may vary among different energy sources; however, there are no discernible clinical differences in operation-related parameters, postoperative complications, and postoperative follow-up. Therefore, the choice of laser does not significantly impact the outcome. However, due to the limited number of included studies, future research should focus on larger sample sizes and multicenter investigations to further validate the findings of this study.

Initial experience with thulium fiber laser for prostate enucleation: Analysis of the intraoperative and short-term outcomes in a prospective, multicenter cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate has rapidly become the gold standard for the surgical treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia, although thulium fiber laser (TFL) has also been postulated as an effective and safe alternative for prostate enucleation. The aim of this study is to describe our initial experience with the TFL for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients proposed to TFL prostate enucleation were included in the analysis, regardless their prostate volume, catheter status and severity of symptoms, in 3 centers. Preoperative characteristics, intraoperative times and functional 3-months follow-up variables were collected, along with complications. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were available, with a mean age of 68.7 years. Enucleation and morcellation efficiencies were 2.04 and 7.47 g/min, respectively. Median hospital stay was one day. Comparable functional data, pre and 3-month post-surgery was: mean prostate volume 88.9 vs 21.3 g, maximum urinary flow 13.2 vs 27.3 ml/s, post-void residual volume 149 vs 7.8 ml, prostatic specific antigen level 11.2 vs 1 ng/ml, and International Prostate Symptom Score 20.75 vs 3.96. Fourteen out of 56 (25%) patients presented with complications grade ≤2, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. DISCUSSION: With wider evidence for other urological indications, very recent evidence about the suitability of TFL for prostate enucleation has arisen, since the first case described in 2021. Our results seem to back up these previous successful experiences as long as we obtained good intraoperative and short term follow-up functional results. However, there is still a need of longer follow-up data. CONCLUSIONS: TFL represents a novel technology for prostate enucleation, with a good intraoperative and short follow-up functional results, and a safety profile similar to the observed for those techniques that have been wider used for this indication. Further studies with longer follow-up periods and comparative with these other techniques are necessary.

Thulium fiber laser vs. holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: results of a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial.

PURPOSE: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) represents the current standard procedure for size-independent surgical therapy of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). With advent of the novel laser technology thulium fiber laser (TFL), we hypothesized that the functional outcome of TFL enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) is non-inferior compared to HoLEP. METHODS: From October 2021 to October 2022, 150 patients with BPO were recruited for the prospective randomized trial in accordance with CONSORT. Stratified randomization into the arms ThuFLEP (n = 74) or HoLEP (n = 76) was carried out. The primary endpoint was non-inferior international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) at three months after treatment. Secondary endpoints were rates of complications, peak flow, residual urine and operation times. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics showed no significant differences. Overall IPSS and QoL improved from 21 to 8 and 4 to 1.5, respectively, after three months of follow-up. No statistically significant differences between ThuFLEP and HoLEP were observed regarding median postoperative IPSS (8.5 vs. 7, p > 0.9), QoL (1 vs. 2, p = 0.6), residual urine (48 vs. 30ml, p = 0.065) and peak flow (19 vs. 17ml/s, p > 0.9). Similarly, safety profile was comparable with no statistically significant differences regarding rate of major complications (5.3 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.5), laser hemostasis time (3 vs. 2min, p = 0.2), use of additive electric coagulation (74 vs. 87%, p = 0.06) or electric coagulation time (8 vs. 8min, p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, randomized trial ThuFLEP showed non-inferior results compared to HoLEP in terms of functional outcomes measured by IPSS and QoL as primary endpoint. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00032699 (18.09.2023, retrospectively registered).

Holmium laser with MOSES technology (MoLEP) vs Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in a real-world setting. Mid-term outcomes from a multicenter propensity score analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare Holmium laser with MOSES technology (MoLEP) and Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in terms of surgical and functional outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent either procedure in five centers (January 2020-January 2022). EXCLUSION CRITERIA: previous urethral/prostatic surgery, radiotherapy, concomitant surgery. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to adjust for the bias inherent to the different characteristics at baseline. Differences between procedures were estimated using Firth Penalized Likelihood regression for International prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QL), maximum flow rate (Qmax). RESULTS: PSM retrieved 118 patients in each group. Baseline characteristics were similar except for PSA and number of men on indwelling catheter (higher in MoLEP group). Median surgical time was significantly longer in the MoLEP group despite the enucleation and morcellation times being similar. Median catheter dwelling time and postoperative length of stay were similar. Most of the early complications were Clavien ≤ 2 grade. There were only two Clavien grade 3 complications (one for each group), one grade 4 in MoLEP group. Rate and type of early and persistent incontinence (> 3 months) were similar. At 12-month, proportion of patients reaching a decrease (Δ) of IPSS ≥ 18 from baseline was significantly larger in MoLEP group, with no significant difference in ΔQmax > 12 ml/sec and ΔQL ≥ -3. CONCLUSION: MoLEP and ThuFLEP were safe and efficacious procedures with similar short-term operative and functional outcomes. At 1-year, MoLEP patients had a sustained reduction of IPPS score.

Thulium: YAG vs continuous-wave thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate: do potential advantages of thulium fiber lasers translate into relevant clinical differences?

PURPOSE: To compare endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser and a super-pulsed thulium fiber laser set in continuous-wave (CW) mode, and to evaluate whether theoretical advantages of thulium fiber lasers, related to their shorter wavelength, translate into relevant clinical differences. METHODS: In total, 110 patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to undergo either thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) or CW thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (CW-ThuFLEP). Intraoperative and postoperative variables and complications were compared. Micturition improvement was assessed at 3-month follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine (PVR) and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Erectile function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5). RESULTS: No significant differences between the ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP groups were found in terms of operative time (70.69 vs 72.41 min), enucleation time (50.23 vs 53.33 min), enucleated tissue weight (40.2 vs 41.9 g), enucleation efficiency (0.80 vs 0.79 g/min), catheterization time (2.45 vs 2.57 days), hospital stay (2.82 vs 2.95 days) and hemoglobin drop (1.05 vs 1.27 g/dl). At 3-month follow-up, no significant differences were found in IPSS (5.09 vs 5.81), Qmax (26.51 vs 27.13 ml/s), PVR (25.22 vs 23.81 ml) and IIEF-5 (14.01 vs 14.54). CONCLUSION: ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP were equivalent in relieving patients from LUTS and improving micturition. Theoretical advantages of the TFL, such as shallower penetration depth and improved vaporization capacity, did not translate into relevant perioperative outcomes or clinical differences.

Randomized prospective trial of the severity of irritative symptoms after HoLEP vs ThuFLEP.

PURPOSE: To compare the short-term postoperative functional outcomes and severity of irritative symptoms following holmium and thulium fiber laser enucleation (HoLEP and ThuFLEP). METHODS: This prospective randomized single-blinded study was performed in accordance with CONSORT. The inclusion criteria were IPSS > 20 or Qmax < 10 ml/s. Patients were randomized between HoLEP and ThuFLEP. Demographics, objective data (PSA, prostate volume, etc.), data on urinary and sexual function (IPSS, IIEF, QoL, QUID, Qmax, ICIQ-MLUTS) were collected. Detailed perioperative information and postoperative data on functional outcomes at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 weeks and 6 months were collected. RESULTS: Data on 163 participants were included (77-HoLEP, 86-ThuFLEP). No differences were found in surgery duration; number of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo I-III), catheterization time and hospital stay. Functional outcomes up to 6 months didn't differ between the groups (IPPS, IIEF, QoL, QUID, ICIQ-MLUTS, Qmax, p > 0.05). Total ICIQ-MLUTS, bother and voiding scores at 1 and 3 months significantly increased compared with the baseline in both groups (p < 0.05). No difference between the groups were observed. In HoLEP the SUI series rate was 1.3% and 1.3% after 3 and 6 months following the procedure; in ThuFLEP: it was 3.5% and 2.3% respectively (p = 0.35 and p = 0.54). CONCLUSION: The preliminary results of the study showed no apparent differences in functional outcomes (IPSS, Qmax), rate of SUI or irritative symptoms. Both ThuFLEP and HoLEP are efficient ways of treating benign prostatic obstruction. Both surgeries are comparable in terms of duration and postoperative complication rates.

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.

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.

Need for upper urinary tract stenting in cases of ureteral orifice injury during laser enucleation of the prostate.

INTRODUCTION: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) can be associated with marked intravesical protrusion, placing ureteral orifices at risk for injury during bladder outlet procedures. AIM: To determine whether ureteral stenting is necessary in cases of ureteral orifice injury during laser enucleation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study included 465 patients with bladder outlet obstruction (IPSS > 20, Qmax < 10) secondary to BPH who were managed with thulium fiber laser (ThuFLEP) or holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). In seven patients, the ureteral orifices were injured during surgery (3-HoLEP; 4-ThuFLEP). Three of the seven patients underwent intraoperative stenting of the upper urinary tract (1-HoLEP; 2-ThuFLEP). In four cases, stenting was not performed (2-HoLEP; 2-ThuFLEP). The follow-up period was 6 months. RESULTS: Postoperatively, none of the patients with a stent in the upper urinary tract exhibited signs of pelvicalyceal system (PCS) dilatation or inhibited urine flow from the kidney (assessed with abdominal ultrasound at 1, 3, 10, and 30 days after surgery). In two patients without stents, follow-up revealed no dilatation of the PCS. The other two patients without stents developed asymptomatic dilatation of the PCS (the pelvis-up to 1.5 cm; the calyx-up to 0.5 cm). At 1 month after surgery, no patients had dilatation of the PCS. CONCLUSIONS: Upper urinary tract stenting in cases of intraoperative ureteral orifice injury during laser enucleation of the prostate for BPH may not be warranted.