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.

A Matched-pair Analysis Comparing Systematic Prostate Biopsy by Conventional Transrectal Ultrasound-guidance Versus Software-based Predefined 3D-Guidance.

OBJECTIVE: To compare software-based three-dimensional-guided systematic prostate biopsy (3D-GSB) with conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TGSB) regarding prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates (CDR). METHODS: In total, 956 patients (200 TGSB patients and 756 3D-GSB patients) without prior positive biopsies and with a prostate-specific antigen value ≤20 ng/ml were eligible for analysis. TGSB and 3D-GSB cases were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching with age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, previous biopsy status, and suspicious palpatory finding as confounders. 3D-GSB was conducted with the semi-robotic prostate fusion-biopsy system Artemis. For each patient in both groups, SB was conducted in a similar pattern with 12 cores. All cores in 3D-GSB were automatically planned and mapped on a 3D-model as well as on the real-time transrectal ultrasound imaging. Primary end points were the clinically significant (cs) and overall CDR. Secondary end point was the cancer-positive core rate. RESULTS: After matching, the csCDR was not significantly different between the 3D-GSB and the TGSB groups (33.3% vs 28.8%, P = .385). Overall CDR was significantly higher for 3D-GSB compared to TGSB (55.6% vs 39.9%, P = .002). 3D-GSB detected significantly more non-significant PCa than TGSB (22.2% vs 11.1%, P = .004). In patients with PCa, the number of cancer-positive SB cores was significantly higher by TGSB (42% vs 25%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: 3D-GSB was associated with a higher CDR than TGSB. However, no significant difference was shown in detection of csPCa between both techniques. Therefore, currently, 3D-GSB does not appear to add value to conventional TGSB.

Predicting Complexity in Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumours: External Validation and Modification of the Bladder Complexity Score.

INTRODUCTION: First external validation of the Bladder Complexity Score (BCS) for predicting complex transurethral resection of bladder tumours (TURBT). METHODS: For BCS calculation, TURBTs performed at our institution between January 2018 and December 2019 were reviewed for the presence of preoperative characteristics listed in the Bladder Complexity Checklist (BCC). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used for BCS validation. To establish a modified BCS (mBCS) with maximum area under the curve (AUC), multivariable logistic regression (MLR) analysis was performed with all BCC-characteristics for different definitions of complex TURBT. RESULTS: 723 TURBTs were included in statistical analyses. Cohort's mean BCS was 11.2 ± 2.4 points (range: 5.5-22 points). In ROC analysis, BCS could not predict complex TURBT (AUC 0.573 [95% CI: 0.517-0.628]). MLR identified tumour size (OR 2.662, p < 0.001), and tumour number > 10 (OR 6.390, p = 0.032) as sole predictors for the modified endpoint of complex TURBT defined as a procedure meeting > 1 criterion: incomplete resection, surgery > 1 h, intraoperative complication, postoperative complications Clavien-Dindo ≥ III. mBCS increased the prediction to an AUC of 0.770 (95% CI: 0.667-0.874). CONCLUSION: In this first external validation, BCS remained an insufficient predictor of complex TURBT. mBCS requires reduced parameters, is more predictive and easier to apply in clinical practice.

Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Radical Prostatectomy: "Single-Shot" versus Multiday Regimen.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is common in radical prostatectomy (RP). Yet there is no standard recommendation in international guidelines due to poor evidence. It is of great importance that these perioperative AP are sufficiently checked and systemically validated. The objective of this study was to determine whether a "single-shot" (single-use) perioperative AP yields equivalent results compared to a multiday prophylaxis in RP regarding postoperative wound infections and urinary tract infections. METHODS: 376 patients treated by RP at the University Medical Centre Mannheim, from 2014 to 2016, were included in this retrospective study. RP was performed either in a robotic-assisted or open manner. One group received an intravenous dose of perioperative AP with either ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin, continued by an oral dose of AP with ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin until catheter removal, while the other group received a single-shot intravenous perioperative AP with either ciprofloxacin or cefuroxime. RESULTS: There was no significant difference regarding the occurrence of postoperative infections between both AP regimes (p = 0.5). Age, body mass index, and ASA classification did not differ significantly between both groups (p > 0.25). Except for surgery time (p < 0.05), perioperative parameters, such as the preoperative presence of germ-free urine culture, length of hospital stay, catheter time, drain lay time, Gleason score, and TNM stadium, did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that perioperative single-shot AP does not entail any disadvantage compared to the multiday AP in terms of postoperative infections after RP.

Switching Lasers: Learning Curve of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate in Surgeons Experienced in Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate.

Objective: To evaluate perioperative parameters, clinical outcomes, and the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in surgeons with experience in thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP). Materials and Methods: The learning curves for HoLEP of the first 50 consecutive patients of two surgeons experienced in ThuLEP were analyzed. In addition, demographic parameters, clinical outcomes, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Results: Mean operation time was 70.9 ± 29.7 minutes (standard deviation) (Surgeon 1) and 74.4 ± 35.4 minutes (Surgeon 2), the mean enucleation efficiency was 1.5 ± 0.6 g/min (Surgeon 1) and 1.5 ± 0.7 g/min (Surgeon 2). The hemoglobin loss was 0.9 ± 0.8 and 0.8 ± 0.8 g/dL. For both surgeons, there was a significant learning curve in enucleation efficiency within the first 50 cases (Surgeon 1: p = 0.034, Surgeon 2: p = 0.006, both: p = 0.0003, Spearman's ρ = 0.351). Both surgeons started with an enucleation efficiency of around 1 g/min in their first 10 cases. No significant correlation between hemoglobin loss and experience could be found (p = 0.823, ρ = 0.025). While there was no significant learning curve for morcellation efficiency (p = 0.785, ρ = 0.028), a significant progress was found for one of the two surgeons regarding laser energy efficiency (p = 0.014). The overall incidence of all grade treatment-related AEs was low at 10.0%, and extremely low for significant complications with Clavien-Dindo Grade >II at 1%. Conclusions: In our analysis, switching to HoLEP is uncomplicated and safe for experienced ThuLEP surgeons. The enucleation efficiency was high from the beginning, but a learning curve was present for both surgeons. No learning curve was noticeable in hemoglobin loss and the incidence of complications, both of which were low throughout the study.

Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy vs Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Trials.

Context: Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are two minimally invasive alternatives to simple prostatectomy, which is considered the standard treatment in large prostate glands. It remains unclear which of the two is superior in terms of outcome and complications. Objective: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of RASP vs EEP. Evidence Acquisition: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and in line with the PRISMA criteria. The database search included clinicaltrials.gov, Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL, and Web of Science and was using the PICO criteria. All comparative trials were considered. Risk of bias was assessed with the revised ROBINS-I tool. Evidence Synthesis: Seven hundred sixty studies were identified, 4 of which were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis, reporting on a total of 901 patients with follow-up up to 24 months. Hemoglobin drop (mean difference [MD] confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 g/dL [0.09-0.58]), the rate of blood transfusions (odds ratio [OR] [CI]: 5.01 [1.60-15.61]) catheterization time (MD [CI]: 3.26 days [1.30-5.23]), and length of hospital stay (LoS) (MD [CI]: 1.94 days [1.11-2.76]) were significantly lower in EEP. No significant differences were seen in operating time and enucleation weight. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of postoperative urinary retention, postoperative transient incontinence, and complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Functional results were similar, with no significant differences in International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum urinary flow rate at follow-up. Conclusion: Both EEP and RASP offer excellent improvement of symptoms due to prostatic hyperplasia. EEP has lower blood loss, shorter catheterization time, and LoS and should be the first choice if available. RASP remains an attractive alternative for extremely large glands, in concomitant diseases, or whenever EEP is not available. Review Registration Number (PROSPERO): CRD42021226901.