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.

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.

Prospective Evaluation of Antibiotic Management in Ureteral Stent and Nephrostomy Interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for and treating asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU) or administering antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended during ureteral stent and nephrostomy interventions. This study investigates the frequency of postinterventional infectious complications to gain insight into the need for antibiotics. METHODS: Between September 2016 and June 2019, 168 insertions/exchanges of ureteral stents or nephrostomies were recorded in a prospective multicenter study. Patients without a symptomatic UTI did not receive antibiotic treatment/prophylaxis. Asymptomatic patients in whom their urologist already administered an antibiotic treatment served as a comparative group. Follow-up included postinterventional complications within 30 days. Symptoms were assessed by the Acute Cystitis Symptom Score (ACSS) before and after the intervention. Predictors of increasing postinterventional symptoms were analyzed by a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five interventions were eligible. One hundred twenty-two (84.1%) interventions were performed without antibiotic treatment. Preinterventional ABU was detected in 54.4% and sterile urine in 22.8% (22.8% without culture). Postinterventional infectious complications did not differ between patients with versus without antibiotics. Transurethral interventions aggravate symptoms (p = 0.034) but do not increase infectious complications compared to percutaneous interventions. Patients without diabetes mellitus are at higher risk for increasing symptoms. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that peri-interventional antibiotic treatment may be omitted in patients without symptomatic UTI. Symptoms must be differentiated between infectious and procedure-associated origins.