Pulse modulation in En-Bloc HoLEP: does it really matter? A propensity score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an established option in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pulse modulation, such as MOSES® technology, has recently been introduced and may offer potential advantages in HoLEP. METHODS: Perioperative data from 117 patients who underwent MOSES® laser enucleation of the prostate (MoLEP) were collected. Propensity score matching using prostate volume, age, body mass index (BMI), and anticoagulant intake was performed using a database of 237 patients treated with HoLEP. In total, 234 patients were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Prostate volume (104 vs. 102 ml), age (70 vs. 71 years), BMI (27 vs. 27), and anticoagulant intake (34 vs. 35%) did not differ significantly between the groups. There were no significant differences in operation time (61.5 vs. 58.1 min, p = 0.42), enucleation efficiency (2.5 vs. 2.6 g/min, p = 0.74), hemostasis time (7.8 vs. 8 min, p = 0.75) and hemoglobin drop (0.9 vs. 0.7 mg/dl, p = 0.48). The complication rates were low in both groups (16.2% for HoLEP and 17.1% for MoLEP). No differences were noted in the Clavien-Dindo Classification (p = 0.63) and the Comprehensive Complication Index (p = 0.24). The rate of complications > CDC IIIa was 0.9% for HoLEP (endoscopic coagulation) and 1.7% for MoLEP (2 cases of endoscopic coagulation). No transfusions were administered. CONCLUSION: Overall, the enucleation efficiency was high in both groups and the procedure time was short. HoLEP is an efficient and safe treatment option in experienced hands, regardless of the use of pulse modulation technology.

Perioperative Outcome of Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate versus Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare clinical safety and efficiency of Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for the treatment of large gland benign prostatic hyperplasia in a tertiary care center. METHODS: Perioperative data of 39 patients who underwent RASP in our institution from 2015 to 2021 was collected. Propensity score matching using prostate volume, patient age, and body mass index (BMI) was performed from a database of 1,100 Patients treated by ThuLEP from 2009 to 2021. A total of 76 patients were matched. Preoperative parameters such as BMI, age, and prostate volume, as well as intra- and postoperative parameters such as operation time, resection weight, transfusion rate, postoperative catheterization time, length of hospital stay (LoS), hemoglobin drop, postoperative urinary retention (PUR), Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC), and the Combined Complication Index (CCI), were evaluated. RESULTS: There was no difference in mean hemoglobin drop (2.2 vs. 1.9 g/dL, p = 0.34), yet endoscopic surgery showed superiority in mean operation time (109 vs. 154 min, p < 0.001), mean postoperative catheterization time (3.3 vs. 7.2 days, p < 0.001), and mean LOS (5.4 vs. 8.4 days, p < 0.001). Complication rates evaluated by CDC (p = 0.11) and CCI (p = 0.89) were similar in both groups. Within the documented complications, transfusion rate (0 vs. 3, p = 0.08) and the occurrence of PUR (1 vs. 2, p = 0.5) showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: ThuLEP and RASP show similar perioperative efficacy and a low rate of complications. ThuLEP had shorter operation times, shorter catheterization time, and a shorter LoS.

Prospective, Randomized Comparative Evaluation of a Novel Hands-On Endourology Training Curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this randomised prospective trial was to evaluate a novel hands-on endourological training programme (HTP) and compare it to the standard endourological colloquium (SC). METHODS: A new HTP was created based on a sequence of theoretical, video-based, and practical elements emphasising contemporary teaching methods. An existing SC in which live endourological operations were attended served as a comparison. Medical students were enrolled in a ratio of 1:2 (SC:HTP). Objective knowledge questionnaires (5 questions, open answers) and subjective Likert-type questionnaires (rating 1-3 vs. 4-5) were used for evaluation. Primary endpoint was urological knowledge transfer; secondary endpoints were learning effects, progression, and urological interest. RESULTS: 167 students (SC n = 52, HTP n = 115) were included. The knowledge assessment showed a significant increase in knowledge transfer benefitting the HTP on all 5 surveyed items (mean: n = 4/5/4/3/2 vs. n = 2/3/1/1, p < 0.0001). Interest and duration of the course were rated significantly more positively by HTP students (100.0/95.0% vs. 85.0/70.0%, p < 0.0001). The HTP students were significantly more confident in performing a cystoscopy independently (HTP 43.5% vs. SC 11.5%, p < 0.0001) and significantly claimed more often to have gained interdisciplinary and urological skills during the course (HTP 90.0/96.5% vs. SC 23.1/82.7%, p < 0.0001/p = 0.003). HTP students were also more likely to take the course again (HTP 98.2% vs. SC 59.6%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Modifying endourological teaching towards hands-on teaching resulted in stronger course interest, greater confidence regarding endourologic procedures, and significantly increased urologic knowledge transfer.