Laparoscopic Simple Prostatectomy: A Single Center Experience with A Long-Term Follow Up.

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study is to assess the long-term outcomes and safety of laparoscopic simple prostatectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2012 and 2019 80 patients with prostates volumes ≥ 80 mL were treated with laparoscopic simple prostatectomy at our department. Uroflowmetry, post void residual volume and standardized questionnaires were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Perioperative complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: The mean specimen weight was 83 grams, and the mean operation time was 156 minutes. At a mean follow-up time of 40 months patients showed a significant improvement of Qmax (P = .002), IPSS (P < .001) and QoL (P < .001). Post void residual volumes decreased significantly. Complications occurred in 11 patients (13.8%), nine had mild (grade 1 - 2) and two had severe (grade 3b - 4a) complications. One conversion to open surgery due to massive prostatic adherence from previous abscess formation was recorded and one patient needed blood transfusion intraoperatively. CONCLUSION: laparoscopic simple prostatectomy is an effective and safe procedure for large volume prostate glands with a significant and stable long term symptoms improvement.

[Solitary ulcer of unknown etiology on the glans penis]. / Solitäres Ulkus unklarer Ätiologie an der Glans penis.

Ulcerations of the prepuce or foreskin of the penis are rare in the day-to-day life of a urologist. The most common differential diagnosis is invasive penile cancer, which is why other diagnoses are often overshadowed. We report a case of a syphilitic lesion which was initially misdiagnosed as penile cancer. Considering the rising incidence of syphilis worldwide, syphilis should be considered as a possible cause of any solitary penile ulcer.

Thulium laser enucleation of prostate versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy in the treatment of large benign prostatic hyperplasia: head-to-head comparison

ABSTRACT Objectives: To compare thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy (LSP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: Data of patients who underwent surgery for "large" BPH (>80mL) at three Institutions were collected and analyzed. Two institutions performed ThuLEP only; the third institution performed LSP only. Preoperative (indwelling catheter status, prostate volume (PVol), hemoglobin (Hb), Qmax, post-voiding residual volume (PVR), IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5) and perioperative data (operative time, enucleated adenoma, catheterization time, length of stay, Hb-drop, complications) were compared. Functional (Qmax, PVR, %ΔQmax) and patient-reported outcomes (IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5, %ΔIPSS, %ΔQoL) were compared at last follow-up. Results: 80 and 115 patients underwent LSP and ThuLEP, respectively. At baseline, median PVol was 130 versus 120mL, p <0.001; Qmax 9.6 vs. 7.1mL/s, p=0.005; IPSS 21 versus 25, p <0.001. Groups were comparable in terms of intraoperative complications (1 during LSP vs. 3 during ThuLEP) and transfusions (1 per group). Differences in terms of operative time (156 vs. 92 minutes, p <0.001), Hb-drop (-2.5 vs. −0.9g/dL, p <0.001), catheterization time (5 vs. 2 days, p <0.001) and postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 0, p <0.001) favored ThuLEP. At median follow-up of 40 months after LSP versus 30 after ThuLEP (p <0.001), Qmax improved by 226% vs. 205% (p=0.5), IPSS decreased by 88% versus 85% (p=0.9), QoL decreased by 80% with IIEF-5 remaining almost unmodified for both the approaches. Conclusions: Our analysis showed that LSP and ThuLEP are comparable in relieving from BPO and improving the patient-reported outcomes. Invasiveness of LSP is more significant.

Thulium laser enucleation of prostate versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy in the treatment of large benign prostatic hyperplasia: head-to-head comparison.

OBJECTIVES: To compare thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy (LSP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of patients who underwent surgery for "large" BPH (>80mL) at three Institutions were collected and analyzed. Two institutions performed ThuLEP only; the third institution performed LSP only. Preoperative (indwelling catheter status, prostate volume (PVol), hemoglobin (Hb), Qmax, post-voiding residual volume (PVR), IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5) and perioperative data (operative time, enucleated adenoma, catheterization time, length of stay, Hb-drop, complications) were compared. Functional (Qmax, PVR, %ΔQmax) and patient-reported outcomes (IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5, %ΔIPSS, %ΔQoL) were compared at last follow-up. RESULTS: 80 and 115 patients underwent LSP and ThuLEP, respectively. At baseline, median PVol was 130 versus 120mL, p <0.001; Qmax 9.6 vs. 7.1mL/s, p=0.005; IPSS 21 versus 25, p <0.001. Groups were comparable in terms of intraoperative complications (1 during LSP vs. 3 during ThuLEP) and transfusions (1 per group). Differences in terms of operative time (156 vs. 92 minutes, p <0.001), Hb-drop (-2.5 vs. -0.9g/dL, p <0.001), catheterization time (5 vs. 2 days, p <0.001) and postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 0, p <0.001) favored ThuLEP. At median follow-up of 40 months after LSP versus 30 after ThuLEP (p <0.001), Qmax improved by 226% vs. 205% (p=0.5), IPSS decreased by 88% versus 85% (p=0.9), QoL decreased by 80% with IIEF-5 remaining almost unmodified for both the approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed that LSP and ThuLEP are comparable in relieving from BPO and improving the patient-reported outcomes. Invasiveness of LSP is more significant.