Development of a Bladder Injury Classification System for Endoscopic Procedures: A Mixed-methods Study Involving Expert Consensus and Validation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The widespread adoption and rapid integration of new technologies and techniques in endoscopic and laser bladder interventions, particularly endoscopic enucleation, have led to new types of bladder injuries. This underscores the need for an intraoperative injury classification system. This study aims to develop and validate the Bladder Injury Classification System for Endoscopic Procedures (BICEP), which standardizes the classification of complications and intervention requirements. METHODS: This mixed-methods study involved experts from the European Association of Urology Section of Urotechnology to standardize and validate the BICEP classification system. An iterative process involving focus groups, expert surveys, and revisions assessed clarity, relevance, comprehensiveness, and practicality. Validity was confirmed through expert surveys conducted in two rounds for face and content validity, using a 5-point Likert scale to correlate ratings with expected outcomes. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The novel BICEP classification system categorizes bladder injuries into ten subcategories with scores ranging from 0 to 4, reflecting injury severity and management requirements. Face validity was demonstrated by a 95% consensus on the system's clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Content validity was supported by high acceptance rates in expert surveys, with average scores of 4.53 and 4.58 in the first and second rounds, respectively. This demonstrates strong support for its applicability in clinical practice. However, the primary limitation is the lack of external validation. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our study demonstrates that the BICEP system is a robust and comprehensive classification system, with strong support for its face and content validity. The BICEP system is a proposal based on expert opinion, and additional studies are necessary to ensure its widespread adoption and efficacy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study addressed the critical need for standardized classification in the increasingly widespread context of urology endoscopic technologies by focusing on intraoperative evaluation, reporting, and standardization of bladder injuries. This study provides a globally standardized basis for the classification and treatment of bladder injuries in urology endoscopic procedures.

[Prostate Surgery for Benign Prostatic Syndrome >200 ml: Endoscopic, Robotic, or Open Approach]. / Prostatachirurgie beim benignen Prostatasyndrom >200 ml: Endoskopisch, robotisch oder doch offen?

Surgical approaches for benign prostatic hyperplasia have evolved and diversified over the past decades. While numerous studies document the efficacy of surgical procedures for moderate prostate sizes, there remains insufficient data for large prostate volumes >200 ml, leaving important questions unanswered regarding their effectiveness and safety. Consequently, selecting and adapting suitable therapeutic options for this specific patient group often poses a significant challenge. In this context, this review comprehensively summarizes and discusses current insights into surgical treatment options for large prostate volumes (>200 ml) following an extensive literature review.In summary, the surgical treatment of prostate volumes >200 ml is a challenge regardless of the chosen surgical method. Minimally invasive approaches should be considered standard practice today. Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate is a size-independent method and has the lowest morbidity. As it may be performed in spinal anaesthesia, endoscopic enucleation is feasible in patients with an increased anaesthetic risk. In extremely large prostate glands, the procedure poses challenges even for highly experienced surgeons. Especially in obese patients, the surgeon should be familiar with different exit strategies. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy provides a minimally invasive alternative that may also treat pathologies such as diverticula or large bladder stones in the same surgical session. Due to its transabdominal approach, the morbidity and anaesthetic risk is comparatively higher. Each centre and surgeon should individually decide in which method they have the greatest expertise and which option is best suited for the specific case. In cases of limited expertise, it is advisable to refer patients to a centre with appropriate specialization.

[Imaging in nephroureterolithasis]. / Bildgebung bei Nephroureterolithiasis.

In the acute diagnostics of a suspected nephroureterolithiasis, ultrasonography should be the examination modality of choice. In cases of suspected urolithiasis, unclear flank pain with fever or in cases of a solitary kidney, a noncontrast computed tomography (CT) scan should always subsequently be performed. If the sonography findings are inconclusive in pregnant women a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination can be considered. If there are indications for urinary diversion, a retrograde imaging study should be performed as part of the urinary diversion. This or CT imaging is also suitable for preinterventional imaging before shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy or ureteroscopy. Postinterventional imaging is not always necessary and sonography is often sufficient. In a conservative treatment approach an abdominal plain X­ray can be used for follow-up assessment.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the endoscopic treatment of prostate hypertrophy: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify expert laser settings for BPH treatment and evaluate the application of preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: A survey was conducted after narrative literature research to identify relevant questions regarding laser use for BPH treatment (59 questions). Experts were asked for laser settings during specific clinical scenarios. Settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-two experts completed the survey with a mean filling time of 12.9 min. Ho:YAG, Thulium fiber laser (TFL), continuous wave (cw) Tm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers are used by 73% (16/22), 50% (11/22), 23% (5/22), 13.6% (3/22) and 9.1% (2/22) of experts, respectively. All experts use anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEP), preferentially in one- or two-lobe technique. Laser settings differ significantly between laser types, with median laser power for apical/main gland EEP of 75/94 W, 60/60 W, 100/100 W, 100/100 W, and 80/80 W for Ho:YAG, TFL, cwTm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers, respectively (p = 0.02 and p = 0.005). However, power settings within the same laser source are similar. Pulse shapes for main gland EEP significantly differ between lasers with long and pulse shape modified (e.g., Moses, Virtual Basket) modes preferred for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Ho:YAG lasers no longer seem to be the mainstay of EEP. TFL lasers are generally used in pulsed mode though clinical applicability for quasi-continuous settings has recently been demonstrated. One and two-lobe techniques are beneficial regarding operative time and are used by most experts.

Morcellation After Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate: Efficiency and Safety of Currently Available Devices.

CONTEXT: Although several studies have compared different morcellators and enucleation techniques for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), there is sparse literature on morcellation, so further experimental and clinical research is required for its optimization. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the contemporary literature on prostate morcellation and to evaluate the safety and efficiency of currently available morcellators for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) in the context of BPH. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive review of the English and French literature relevant to prostate morcellation was performed using the PubMed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Wiley Online Library database from 1998 to 2020 using PICOS (patient population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design) criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We retrieved 26 studies involving 5652 patients treated with a morcellator that were eligible for data extraction and analysis. The mean patient age was 67.4 (range 61.4-72.8) yr. The weighted mean efficiency of Piranha, VersaCut, and DrillCut morcellators was 5.29, 3.95, and 5.3 g/min, respectively. Several approaches, such as en bloc, two-lobe, inverse, and improved techniques, may increase morcellation efficiency and safety. The lowest weighted mean rate of bladder wall injury was 1.24% for Piranha, followed by 1.98% for DrillCut, and 5.23% for VersaCut, while the VersaCut morcellator had the lowest weighted mean rate of device malfunction at 0.74%, compared to 2.07% for Piranha and 7.86% for DrillCut. CONCLUSIONS: All three morcellators are efficient and safe for prostatic morcellation after EEP. Further development of devices and techniques may improve the efficiency and safety profile of morcellation. To increase safety, surgeon expertise, technical equipment, and patient characteristics should be considered. Therefore, interdisciplinary exchange of knowledge and further technological innovations are strongly encouraged. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the safety and efficacy of devices called morcellators. These devices cut tissue into small pieces that are easier to remove from the body, and are used during laser surgery for benign enlargement of the prostate. Three morcellators are currently available on the market and are comparable in safety and efficacy.

[Lasers in urology : Relevant principles]. / Laser in der Urologie : Relevante Grundlagen.

A fundamental understanding of the physical properties is necessary for the application of lasers in medicine in order to be able to understand and appreciate the biological effect. The most important parameters are emission mode, wavelength of the laser and power output measured in watts. Pulsed lasers can be used for the treatment of stones and soft tissues, whereby in urology this essentially applies to the prostate gland and to a lesser extent also for the ureter, urethra, bladder and kidneys.

A call for HoLEP: en-bloc vs. two-lobe vs. three-lobe.

PURPOSE: Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) is widely accepted as standard laser enucleation technique for patients with benign prostate obstruction (BPO). Initially developed as a three-lobe enucleation technique, several modifications have been published. Comparison of the enucleation techniques is lacking. Therefor we aimed to compare outcomes of three enucleation techniques (en-bloc vs. two-lobe vs. three-lobe). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We prospectively collected data of 600 patients treated between 01/2017 and 12/2017 with HoLEP for BPO. Patients were randomised to either enbloc, two-lobe, or three-lobe enucleation, respectively. Data collection consisted of parameters on operation time, perioperative parameters, and functional outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses (ANOVA-test for continuous variables; Chi2-test for categorical variables) were performed regarding differences between the three enucleation techniques. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were not significantly different (all p > 0.05). Significant differences were observed with respect to overall operation time (en-bloc vs. two-lobe vs. three-lobe: 40.5 vs. 40.7 vs. 47.9, respectively; p < 0.001), speed (g/min.) (en-bloc vs. two-lobe vs. three-lobe, 1.82 vs. 1.76 vs. 1.67, respectively; p 0.006), and enucleation time (en-bloc vs. two-lobe vs. three-lobe: 31.7 vs. 32 vs. 37.7, respectively; p < 0.001). When solely comparing en-bloc vs. two-lobe enucleation, differences in terms of enucleation time, operation time, and speed were not significantly different (p 0.8, 0.9, and 0.2, respectively). Postoperative outcomes were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: All three HoLEP enucleation techniques show similar postoperative outcomes. However, enbloc and two-lobe enucleation are significantly faster with respect to enucleation, overall operation time, and speed compared to the three-lobe technique.

Perioperative Safety in Patient Under Oral Anticoagulation During Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in patients on oral anticoagulation (OA) with respect to intra- and postoperative bleeding complications. METHODS: Between January 2013 and October 2016, 2178 patients were included in this study, of whom 94 received direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and 151 received vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) before HoLEP. All patients either ceased OA (DOACs) or were bridged subtherapeutically (VKAs, international normalized ratio <2) during surgery. These patients were compared to a sample size of 1933 nonanticoagulated patients. RESULTS: A significant longer postoperative stay was noted for the patients on DOACs (5.2 [4-6] days) and VKAs (5.3 [4-5] days) compared to the control group (4.5 [4-4] days). The mean drop in hemoglobin was significantly higher in the VKA group compared to the DOAC and control group. There was a significantly higher rate of postoperative bladder tamponades/secondary coagulation in patients on OA with 6 (7.9%)/3 (3.9%) patients in the DOAC group, 10 (7.4%)/6 (4.4%) patients in the VKA group compared to 37 (2.2%)/21 (2.1%) patients in the control group, respectively (p < 0.001). Eight patients required blood transfusions with a distribution of 1 (1.3%), 3 (2.2%), and 4 (0.2%) patients in the DOAC, VKA, and control group, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that bridged patients who's DOACs and VKAs were ceased before HoLEP are at higher risk of intra- and postoperative bleeding complications. Nonetheless, HoLEP appears to be a safe and effective procedure in those patients.

Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate and simple open prostatectomy--which procedure is faster?

PURPOSE: The longer operative time of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared to transurethral resection of the prostate or simple open prostatectomy reported in the literature might have been biased by the unavailability of a soft tissue morcellator, limited surgical experience with holmium laser prostate enucleation or the fact that significantly more tissue was removed by enucleation than by resection. We objectively compared the resection speed of contemporary holmium laser enucleation vs transurethral resection of the prostate and of holmium laser enucleation vs simple open prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 100 cases of transurethral prostate resection and 60 of simple open prostatectomy from our previous randomized, controlled trials. These cases were subjected to matched pair analysis with greater than 1,000 from our prospective contemporary database on holmium laser prostate enucleation. Exact matches were made for the same amount of resected tissue. In all contemporary holmium laser enucleation cases a mechanical soft tissue morcellator was used. We calculated and compared the specific resection speed in gm per minute and operative time for the same amount of resected tissue. RESULTS: In groups 1 and 2 we matched 99 exact laser enucleation-transurethral resection pairs and 53 exact laser enucleation-simple open prostatectomy pairs, respectively. Resection speed and operative time for laser enucleation were statistically significantly faster than for resection (0.61 vs 0.51 gm per minute and 62 vs 73 minutes, p <0.01) and similar to those of simple open prostatectomy (0.92 vs 1.0 gm per minute and 101 vs 90 minutes, respectively, p ≥0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Resection speed seems to be an objective criterion for comparing the efficacy of prostatic tissue removal. Based on resection speed holmium laser enucleation of the prostate is faster than transurethral resection of the prostate and similar to simple open prostatectomy.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To report 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with open prostatectomy (OP). METHODS: One hundred twenty patients with prostates greater than 100g in weight according to transrectal ultrasound were randomised to either the HoLEP or the OP group (ie, 60 patients to each group). Preoperative and postoperative assessments included American Urological Association Symptom Score (AUA-SS), maximum urinary flow rates (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine (PVRU) volumes. Measurements were performed at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 mo. Postoperative outcome data were compared. All complications were recorded. RESULTS: Five years postoperatively, a total of 46 patients (38.3%) were lost to follow-up or had to be excluded from the study. All the remaining 74 patients (42 HoLEP vs. 32 OP patients, p=0.11) had undergone the 5-yr follow-up assessments. Mean AUA-SS was 3.0 in both groups (p=0.98), mean Qmax was 24.4 ml/s in both groups (p=0.97) and PVRU volume was 11 ml in the HoLEP and 5 ml in the OP group (p=0.25). Late complications consisted of urethral strictures and bladder-neck contractures; reoperation rates were 5% in the HoLEP and 6.7% in the OP group (p=1.0). No patient developed benign prostatic hyperplasia recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Five years after the operation, the improvements in micturition obtained with HoLEP and OP were equally good, and reoperation rates similarly low. HoLEP seems to be a true endourological alternative to OP.

Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To report 3-yr follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: A total of 200 patients with urodynamic obstruction and a prostate volume of less than 100 cc were prospectively randomised and assigned to HoLEP or TURP. All patients were assessed preoperatively and followed at 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 mo postoperatively. American Urological Association Symptom Score (AUA SS), maximum flow rate (Q(max)), and postvoid residual (PVR) [urine] volume were obtained at each follow-up. Perioperative data and postoperative outcome were compared. All complications were recorded. RESULTS: AUA SS were significantly better 2 yr postoperatively in the HoLEP group (1.7 vs. 3.9, p<0.0001) and similar at 3 yr (2.7 vs. 3.3, p=0.17). PVR volume was significantly better 2 yr (5.6 vs. 19.9 ml, p<0.001) and 3 yr (8.4 vs. 20.2 ml, p=0.012) postoperatively in HoLEP patients. Q(max) was similar in the HoLEP and TURP groups at 2 yr (28.0 vs. 29.1 ml/s, p=0.83) and at 3 yr (29.0 vs. 27.5 ml/s, p=0.41) postoperatively. Late complications consisted of urethral strictures, bladder-neck contractures, and BPH recurrence; reoperation rates were 7.2% in the HoLEP and 6.6% in the TURP group (p=1.0). CONCLUSIONS: After 2 and 3 yr of follow-up, HoLEP micturition outcomes compare favourably with TURP. Late complications are equally low. HoLEP may be a real alternative to TURP.

Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 patients.

PURPOSE: Transurethral electrocautery resection (TURP) is generally regarded as the gold standard surgical treatment for bladder outflow obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia despite its rather high morbidity. The high powered holmium:YAG laser can be used endoscopically to enucleate obstructing prostatic tissue in a relatively bloodless manner. The technique of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) was compared to standard TURP for the surgical management of prostate adenomas in a randomized, prospective clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 urodynamically obstructed patients with a prostate of less than 100 gm on transrectal ultrasound were randomized to HoLEP or TURP. All patients were assessed preoperatively, and 1, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Patient baseline characteristics, perioperative data and postoperative outcome were compared. All complications were noted. RESULTS: HoLEP was significantly superior to TURP in terms of catheter time, hospital stay and hemoglobin loss but operative time was longer. HoLEP and TURP resulted in a significant improvement in American Urological Association symptom scores, peak urinary flow rates and post-void residual urine volumes with symptoms scores and residual volume significantly better in the holmium group. Effects on continence and potency were similar in the 2 groups but adverse events were less frequent in the holmium group. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP and TURP are highly effective procedures for removing obstructing prostatic adenomas. HoLEP resulted in significantly better micturition parameters and less perioperative morbidity.

Does perioperative outcome of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate depend on prostate size?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In conventional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), perioperative morbidity resulting from causes such as blood loss and TUR syndrome increases with prostate size. Therefore, TURP is restricted to small and medium-sized glands. The present study aimed to find out whether perioperative parameters of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) other than operation time and weight of resected tissue were dependent on prostate size. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 384 patients were treated with HoLEP (holmium:YAG laser, 2.0 J, 40 or 50 Hz, 80 or 100 W, 550-nm bare fiber) for acute removal of obstructing benign hyperplastic tissue. Among them, 111 patients (28.9%) had prostates of <40 g (group 1), 152 (39.6%) had prostates of 40 to 79 g (group 2), and 121 (31.5%) had prostates of >/=80 g (range 80-260) (group 3). The perioperative outcomes of the three groups were compared. A total of 346 patients completed the 1-month postoperative assessment. RESULTS: The mean prostate sizes were 31.8 g, 56 g, and 98.7 g for groups 1, 2, and 3 (P<0.0001 group 1 v group 2 v group 3). The mean resected tissue weight was 19.5 g v 34.4 g (P= 0.009) v 70.1 g (range 50-220) (P< 0.0001). The mean operation time was 64.3 v 84.2 (P= 0.009) v 118.4 minutes (P< 0.0001). The mean hemoglobin loss was 0.9 v 1.2 (NS) v 1.9 g/dL (P< 0.001). The overall correlation between hemoglobin loss and prostate size in all patients was very weak (r = 0.229) and just exceeded the level of significance (r = 0.2). In all three groups, the median postoperative catheter time was 1 day, and the median postoperative hospital stay was 2 days. The HoLEP resulted in an immediate and significant improvement of American Urological Association Symptom Scores, peak urinary flow rates, and postvoiding residual urine volumes (P< 0.0001) 1 month after the operation, without significant differences between the groups. The rate of complications was similar in all three groups. None of the patients needed blood transfusions. There were no perioperative deaths. CONCLUSION: In HoLEP, perioperative morbidity and postoperative micturition improvement do not depend on prostate size. Therefore, in contrast to TURP, HoLEP is equally suitable for small, medium-size, and large prostate glands.

Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared with transvesical open prostatectomy: 18-month follow-up of a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: This ongoing randomized study aims to find out whether transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) could be an alternative to open transvesical prostatectomy in patients with prostates >100 g. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 120 urodynamically obstructed patients were randomized to HoLEP or open prostatectomy, 60 patients to each group. The HoLEP was performed with high-powered Ho:YAG lasers at 80 to 100 W (2.0 J, 40-50 Hz) and 550-nm bare laser fibers. The American Urological Association Symptom Scores, peak urinary flow rates, and postvoiding residual urine volumes were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months postoperatively. All complications were noted. RESULTS: By the Mann-Whitney test, there was no significant difference between the HoLEP and open surgery groups in patient age (69.0 years HoLEP v 71.0 years open surgery), prostate volume (115 cc [range 100-230 cc] v 113 cc [100-230 cc], or weight of resected tissue (94 g [range 57-220 g] v 96 g [range 61-220 g]). There were significant differences in the mean operative time (136 v 91 minutes; P< 0.0001), mean hemoglobin loss (1.9 v 2.8 g/dL; P< 0.0001), median catheter time (1 day v 6 days; P< 0.0001), and median hospital stay (2 days v 10 days; P< 0.0001). Both HoLEP and open prostatectomy resulted in pronounced and lasting postoperative improvements in Symptom Scores, peak urinary flow rates, and postvoiding residual volumes (P< 0.0001). The differences between HoLEP and open prostatectomy were not significant at any interval for any parameter. Blood transfusions were required in 0 HoLEP patients v 8 open surgery patients. Arterial bleeding occurred in three patients in each group. Secondary apical resection was required in two HoLEP patients and no open surgery patients. Bladder neck contracture occurred in none of the HoLEP patients and two of those having open surgery. Thus, the total number of patients having complications was 7 with HoLEP and 13 with open surgery. There were no deaths in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The HoLEP appears to be an endourologic alternative to open surgical enucleation of the prostate for large glands. It entails significantly less blood loss and a much shorter catheter time and hospital stay. The perioperative outcome strongly favors the holmium procedure. The rate of late complications is equally low with each procedure. The postoperative micturition improvement was significant and lasting and was equivalent in the two groups.

Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transvesical open enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 gm.:: a randomized prospective trial of 120 patients.

PURPOSE: Prostate adenomas greater than 100 gm. have traditionally been treated with open prostatectomy. This procedure may involve considerable blood loss, morbidity, prolonged hospital stay and recovery time. The high powered holmium:YAG laser can be used endoscopically to enucleate obstructing prostatic tissue in a relatively bloodless manner. The technique of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate is compared to open prostatectomy for the surgical management of large prostate adenomas in a prospective randomized study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 urodynamically obstructed patients with a prostate larger than 100 gm. on transrectal ultrasound were randomized to undergo holmium laser enucleation of the prostate or open prostatectomy. All patients were assessed preoperatively and 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Patient baseline characteristics, perioperative data and postoperative outcome were compared. All complications were noted. RESULTS: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and open prostatectomy resulted in a similar and significant improvement in American Urological Association symptom scores, peak urinary flow rates and post-void residual urine volumes. Operating time was significantly longer in the holmium group but blood loss was significantly less, and catheterization time and hospital stay were significantly shorter. Effects on continence and potency were similar in both groups but adverse events were less frequent in the holmium group. None of the holmium group patients needed blood transfusions in contrast to 8 patients in the prostatectomy group. CONCLUSIONS: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and open prostatectomy are equally effective procedures for removal of large prostatic adenomas. Holmium laser enucleation resulted in significantly less perioperative morbidity and may become the endourological alternative to open prostatectomy.