Ejaculatory function following transperineal laser ablation vs TURP for benign prostatic obstruction: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability of transperineal interstitial laser ablation of the prostate (TPLA) in preserving antegrade ejaculation compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-centre, prospective, randomized, open-label study, consecutive patients with indication for surgical treatment for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) were enrolled between January 2020 and September 2021 (NCT04781049). Patients were randomized to one of two treatment arms: Group A: TPLA (experimental group) and Group B: TURP (reference standard group). The primary endpoint was change in ejaculatory function (assessed by the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire - Ejaculatory function domain [EJ-MSHQ]) at 1 month after surgery. Secondary endpoints included comparison of visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, changes in sexual function (assessed using the five-item International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]), change in International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS], change in quality of life score, and maximum urinary flow rate [Qmax ] improvement at 1-6 months, as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (26 TPLA vs 25 TURP) were analysed. No differences in the perception of pain assessed by VAS and no differences in IIEF-5 score were found between the groups. The distribution of ejaculatory function assessed by the EJ-MSHQ remained unmodified after TPLA (P = 0.2), while a median 30% decrease in EJ-MSHQ score was observed after TURP (P = 0.01). Absence of antegrade ejaculation was reported in one patient in the TPLA group (vs 18 patients in the TURP group). A statistically significant difference between the treatment groups was found in terms of postoperative Qmax (TPLA vs TURP: 15.2 [interquartile range 13.5-18.3] mL/s vs 26.0 [interquartile range 22.0-48.0] mL/s; P < 0.001). Both treatments significantly improved Qmax , with a mean 23.9 mL/s improvement after TURP (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.1-30.7) vs 6.0 mL/s after TPLA (95% CI 5.0-7.0), and IPSS, with a mean decrease of 11.6 (95% CI 9.7-13.5) vs 5.8 after TPLA (95% CI.2-9.6) with respect to baseline. CONCLUSION: In our study, TPLA preserved ejaculatory function in 96% of cases in addition to providing significant relief from BPO.

Is thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate equally safe and effective in elderly patients? A propensity score matched analysis of early perioperative and functional outcomes.

PURPOSE: To evaluate if thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) is equally safe and effective in a selected cohort of elderly patients when compared to "younger" patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent ThuVEP between September 2018 and February 2020. After application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, patients were stratified according to the 75 years-old cut-off point suggested by the WHO. Group A included patients ≤75 years-old; Group B included patients >75 years-old. Preoperative assessment included urological consultation, prostate specific antigen (PSA), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life index, transrectal ultrasound to estimate prostate volume (PVol), and uroflowmetry to assess preoperative Qmax, Qave and post-void residual volume (PVR). Perioperative and postoperative data were analyzed during 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: After propensity-score analysis, 51 versus 51 patients were 1:1 matched according to PVol, PSA, Qmax, IPSS and QoL. Patients were comparable at baseline excluding age (65 (IQR 59-70) versus 79 (IQR 77-82) years, Group A versus B, respectively, P-value <.001). No differences were found in terms of hemoglobin drop, complications rate, catheterization time and length of hospital stay. Group A (younger) patients had more significant improvement in 30-days absolute Qmax, Qave and ΔQmax. At 90-days follow-up, the differences between the groups disappeared. Within the 90-days follow-up, no significant differences were found in the readmission rate, with no need of reinterventions. CONCLUSIONS: In our hands, even in elderly patients affected by BPH, ThuVEP appears to be a safe and effective treatment option.