Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): AUA Guideline Amendment 2023.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline amendment is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based management of male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary/attributed to BPH (LUTS/BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Minnesota Evidence Review Team searched Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) database to identify studies relevant to the management of BPH. The guideline was updated in 2023 to capture eligible literature published between September 2020 and October 2022. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. RESULTS: The BPH amendment resulted in changes to statements/supporting text on combination therapy, photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT), laser enucleation, and prostate artery embolization (PAE). A new statement on temporary implanted prostatic devices (TIPD) was added. In addition, statements on transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) were removed and information regarding these legacy technologies was added to the background section. References and the accompanying treatment algorithms were updated to align with the updated text. CONCLUSION: This guideline seeks to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and treat patients with BPH/LUTS based on currently available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support these statements to improve patient care.

Evaluation of the learning curve for Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate in a contemporary cohort.

PURPOSE: To assess the learning curve of Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) of a single surgeon. METHODS: Hundred patients suffering from benign prostatic hyperplasia were treated by the same surgeon. In all cases, a well-trained urologist was present in the operating room. Patients urinary function was assessed preoperatively using the International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate and Post-Void Residual volume. Preoperative prostate volume was recorded. Enucleation and morcellation efficiency and complication rate were evaluated. Patients were divided into 5 cohorts of 20 consecutive cases to assess changes in outcomes through time. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 73.1 years (SD 17.5) and mean prostate volume was 89.7 ml (SD 55.1). Overall, mean enucleation and morcellation efficiency were 1.7 (SD 2.9) and 5.1 (SD 2.7) g/min. A statistically significant increase in enucleation efficiency was observed when comparing cohort 1 vs 2 (0.9 vs 1.3 g/min, p = 0.03) and cohort 2 vs 3 (1.3 vs 1.7 g/min, p = 0.02). A statistically significant increase in morcellation efficiency was observed when comparing cohort 1 vs 2 (2.8 vs 3.7 g/min, p = 0.02) and cohort 2 vs 3 (3.7 vs 4.9 g/min, p = 0.03). In both cases, no significant differences were observed when comparing the following cohorts. Complication rate showed no significant differences throughout the caseload. CONCLUSIONS: In our single-surgeon experience, we observed a learning curve of nearly 60 cases for the ThuLEP procedure in presence of a well-trained surgeon. Complication rate was low from the beginning of surgical experience.

Anatomic endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a novel hybrid thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser generator: surgical technique and clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE: We aim to report here the first clinical series of patients treated with AEEP using a novel hybrid thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser generator (RevoLix HTL, LISA Laser Products, Germany), i.e. capable of emitting both in pulsated and continuous-wave. METHODS: We included 39 consecutive patients who underwent hybrid Tm:YAG AEEP (hybrid ThuLEP) at a single center starting from July 2022 and were followed-up until 3 months after surgery. Complete baseline, intraoperative, and follow-up demographic and clinical data were collected. The International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS) questionnaire was used to quantify urinary symptoms at baseline and during follow-up. Post-operative follow-up further included a PSA test, uroflowmetry with post-void residual volume (PVR) measurement. Clavien-Dindo classification was used to classify complications. RESULTS: Median (IQR) age at surgery and prostate volume were 68 (IQR 63-74) years and 85 (60-105) cc. Both en-bloc or two-lobes technique enucleation were performed according to the intraoperative and endoscopic anatomy, with a median operative time of 85 (63-108) minutes. Bladder catheter was removed in all cases on postoperative day two. Intraoperative bleeding requiring conversion to bipolar enucleation was observed in two patients. After discharge, one patient developed arm phlebitis which was treated with anticoagulants leading to new onset haematuria requiring short term catheterisation (Clavien-Dindo grade II) and two more patients had a single episode of acute urinary retention (Clavien-Dindo grade I). Median pre- vs postoperative Qmax and IPSS were 8.0 (7.0-9.4) vs. 25.0 (22.5-32.5) ml/s and 22 (20-28) vs. 1 (0-2), whereas PVR decreased from 70 (50-115) to 0 (0-26) ml. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid ThuLEP is a feasible and effective surgical procedure for the management of benign prostatic obstruction.

Comparison of HoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: a propensity score-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) and Thulium fibre laser enucleation of prostate (ThuFLEP) by performing propensity score matched analysis (PSM). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the patients who underwent HoLEP (Group 1, n = 696), ThuLEP (Group 2, n = 146) and ThuFLEP (Group 3, n = 193) surgery because of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). A 1:1:1 HoLEP: ThuLEP: ThuFLEP group matching was performed using PSM analysis. Perioperative, postoperative functional outcomes and complications were analysed and compared. RESULTS: We observed significant improvement in functional parameters regarding IPSS, Qmax, PVR and quality of life in all groups compared to baseline values at the 1st, 6th and 12th postoperative months. There was no significant difference between different laser types in terms of urge (UUI) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 1st postoperative month. In all three groups, no patient had postoperative SUI or UUI at 6th and 12th postoperative months. In addition, no significant difference was observed between laser types in terms of postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: HoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP are safe and effective LEP methods with improvement in functional parameters and low complication rates. Similar results in terms of functional outcomes and complications clearly show that these surgeries are alternatives to each other for the patients with BPO. Experts' opinions, practices and enucleation techniques should also be taken into consideration when choosing a laser for BPO surgery.

Real-world experience with the new pulsed solid-state Thulium: YAG laser (Thulio) for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate.

PURPOSE: The solid-state Thulium laser (Tm: YAG) is a novel alternative to the widely used Holmium laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) due to its relatively high peak power. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of a new pulsed Tm: YAG laser in its first application in humans. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected for the first 103 patients who underwent EEP with a new pulsed solid-state Tm: YAG laser (Thulio®, Dornier MedTech Systems GmbH, Weßling, Germany). Peri- and postoperative data were assessed. Procedure-specific complications were graded using Clavien-Dindo Classifications (CDC). Patients were interviewed 15 months after the surgery to evaluate functional and long-term outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®). RESULTS: The mean preoperative prostate volume was 105.6 ± 55.0 ml. Median enucleation speed was 4.1 g per minute (range 1.1-9.7). Short-term postoperative complications occurred in 21 patients (20.4%), but no high-grade complications (CDC ≥ IV) were observed. Five patients suffered gross haematuria and required reintervention (CDC IIIb; 4.9%). After 15 months, 76 patients (73.8%) participated in the follow-up interview, where seven patients (9.2%) reported complications, including two reinterventions for urethral strictures (CDC IIIb; 2.6%). Most patients reported an improvement in continence (54.0%) and urine stream (93.4%), but no difference in erectile function (81.6%). No persistent dysuria was reported. Patient satisfaction with the surgery results was very high (96.1%). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate with the new pulsed solid-state Tm: YAG laser is a safe and effective option for surgical BPH treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register number: DRKS00031676. Registration date: 10 May 2023, retrospectively registered.

The safety and efficacy of five surgical treatments in prostate enucleation: a network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to investigate the comparative outcomes of five different energy types on surgical efficacy and postoperative recovery in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia. METHODS: The literature was systematically reviewed on December 1st, 2023, encompassing studies retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases that incorporated clinical studies of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), Thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP), transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate (PKEP), diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) and thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) in the treatment of prostatic hyperplasia. Two independent reviewers extracted study data and conducted quality assessments using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Network meta-analysis (NMA) was employed to indirectly analyze the outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) techniques. RESULTS: The study included a total of 38 studies, comprising 21 non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) and 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), incorporating five distinct techniques: holmium laser, Thulium:YAG laser, bipolar plasma, diode laser and thulium fiber laser. In comparing treatment durations, ThuLEP and HoLEP had shorter overall hospital stays than PKEP, while the enucleation time of ThuLEP and HoLEP was shorter than that of ThuFLEP. Moreover, the enucleation tissue weight of both thulium fiber laser and holmium laser was heavier than bipolar plasma. However, the analysis did not reveal any statistically significant variation in complications among the various types of enucleation. In postoperative follow-up, the IPSS at 3 months post-operation was superior in the Thulium:YAG laser group compared to the holmium laser group. The thulium fiber laser technique demonstrated significant advantages over other enucleation methods in terms of QoL and PVR at 12 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Theoretical properties may vary among different energy sources; however, there are no discernible clinical differences in operation-related parameters, postoperative complications, and postoperative follow-up. Therefore, the choice of laser does not significantly impact the outcome. However, due to the limited number of included studies, future research should focus on larger sample sizes and multicenter investigations to further validate the findings of this study.

Peri- and post-operative outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate and assess outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA checklist. We searched the Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases. We included only randomised-controlled trials (RCT) comparing modifications of EEPs and assessed the risk of bias (RoB). RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included in the study. Overall, 1266 patients were treated with Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and 80 patients with thulium laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP). The operative time during pulse shape-modified HoLEP was shorter when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (MD 18.08 min, 95% CI 8.11-28.05 min, p = 0.0004). The decrease in haemoglobin was significantly lower for two-lobe HoLEP when compared to three-lobe HoLEP (MD 0.16 g/dl, 95% CI 0.22-0.1 g/dl, p < 0.00001). Virtual Basket (VB) HoLEP showed a smaller haemoglobin decrease when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (1.12 ± 1.78 vs. 2.54 ± 1.23 g/dl, p = 0.03). When directly comparing one- vs. two- vs. three-lobe HoLEP, surgical time (p < 0.001) and enucleation efficiency (p = 0.006) were significantly different and favouring one- and two-lobe HoLEP in the study with the largest patient population included. No significant differences for complications were observed; however, Clavien-Dindo IVa events were reported for two patients. CONCLUSION: All variations of EEP improve symptoms and functional parameters with a low incidence of high-grade complications. One- and two-lobe approaches and pulse shape-modified HoLEP seem to be beneficial in terms of operative time and blood loss.

What is the effect of laser anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate on the ejaculatory functions? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Laser anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (LAEEP) has emerged as a promising new approach in endoscopic surgery for BPH. LAEEP could still result in ejaculatory dysfunction. AIM: This systematic review aimed to examine the impact of LAEEP on male ejaculatory functions. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, and 15 records were included. Outcomes of interest included ejaculatory dysfunction (retrograde ejaculation, painful ejaculation, etc.) and validated questionnaire scores. The quality of studies included in the systematic review was determined using QUADAS scoring. RESULTS: We retrieved data for 1877 men in 15 clinical studies investigating LAEEP surgery and reporting EjD rates. While only three of the obtained studies were on thulium fiber (ThuLEP), the rest were on holmium (HoLEP). The definition of "Ejaculatory Dysfunction" was not standardized, but in most works, it is referred to as retrograde ejaculation (RE). There were no data on the relationship between other LAEEP techniques and ejaculation functions. The authors compared the outcomes of used standard laser enucleation techniques with the modified techniques. The RE rate in LAEEP was 62.1 ± 25.1%, 71.3 ± 16.1% in standard techniques, and 27.2 ± 18.1% in ejaculation-preserving modified techniques (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This review demonstrated that ejaculation-preserving techniques, i.e., modified techniques are superior to standard techniques. Studies have also shown that ejaculatory dysfunction rates gradually decrease with long-term follow-ups. Future well-designed studies could further investigate the ejaculation-preserving modification of LAEEP techniques and how they impact EjD rates and other sexual function outcomes.

Thulium: YAG vs continuous-wave thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate: do potential advantages of thulium fiber lasers translate into relevant clinical differences?

PURPOSE: To compare endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser and a super-pulsed thulium fiber laser set in continuous-wave (CW) mode, and to evaluate whether theoretical advantages of thulium fiber lasers, related to their shorter wavelength, translate into relevant clinical differences. METHODS: In total, 110 patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to undergo either thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) or CW thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (CW-ThuFLEP). Intraoperative and postoperative variables and complications were compared. Micturition improvement was assessed at 3-month follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine (PVR) and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Erectile function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5). RESULTS: No significant differences between the ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP groups were found in terms of operative time (70.69 vs 72.41 min), enucleation time (50.23 vs 53.33 min), enucleated tissue weight (40.2 vs 41.9 g), enucleation efficiency (0.80 vs 0.79 g/min), catheterization time (2.45 vs 2.57 days), hospital stay (2.82 vs 2.95 days) and hemoglobin drop (1.05 vs 1.27 g/dl). At 3-month follow-up, no significant differences were found in IPSS (5.09 vs 5.81), Qmax (26.51 vs 27.13 ml/s), PVR (25.22 vs 23.81 ml) and IIEF-5 (14.01 vs 14.54). CONCLUSION: ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP were equivalent in relieving patients from LUTS and improving micturition. Theoretical advantages of the TFL, such as shallower penetration depth and improved vaporization capacity, did not translate into relevant perioperative outcomes or clinical differences.

Thermal effects of thulium: YAG laser treatment of the prostate-an in vitro study.

PURPOSE: To objectively determine whether there is potential thermal tissue damage during Tm:YAG laser-based LUTS treatment. METHODS: Our experimental model was comprised of a prostatic resection trainer placed in a 37 °C water bath. In a hollowed-out central area simulating the urethral lumen, we placed a RigiFib 800 fibre, irrigation inflow regulated with a digital pump, and a type K thermocouple. A second thermocouple was inserted 0.5/1 cm adjacently and protected with an aluminum barrier to prevent it from urethral fluid. We investigated continuous and intermittent 120 W and 80 W laser application with various irrigation rates in eight measurement sessions lasting up to 14 min. Thermal measurements were recorded continuously and in real-time using MatLab. All experiments were repeated five times to balance out variations. RESULTS: Continuous laser application at 120 W and 125 ml/min caused a urethral ∆T of ~ 15 K and a parenchymal temperature increase of up to 7 K. With 50 ml/min irrigation, a urethral and parenchymal ∆T of 30 K and 15 K were reached, respectively. Subsequently and in absence of laser application, prostatic parenchyma needed over 16 min to reach baseline body temperature. At 80 W lower temperature increases were reached compared to similar irrigation but higher power. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that potentially harming temperatures can be reached, especially during high laser power and low irrigation. The heat generation can also be conveyed to the prostate parenchyma and deeper structures, potentially affecting the neurovascular bundles. Further clinical studies with intracorporal temperature measurement are necessary to further investigate this potentially harming surgical adverse effect.

The efficacy of a suppository based on Phenolmicin P3 and Bosexil (Mictalase®) in control of irritative symptoms in patients undergoing thulium laser enucleation of prostate: a single-center, randomized, controlled, open label, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies described post-operative irritative symptoms after laser enucleation of prostate, sometimes associated with urge incontinence, probably linked to laser-induced prostatic capsule irritation, and potential for lower urinary tract infections We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a suppository based on Phenolmicin P3 and Bosexil (Mictalase®) in control of irritative symptoms in patients undergoing thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP). METHODS: In this single-center, prospective, randomized, open label, phase-III study, patients with indication to ThuLEP were enrolled (Dec2019-Feb2021-Institutional ethics committee STS CE Lazio approval no.1/N-726-ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05130918). The report conformed to CONSORT 2010 guidelines. Eligible patients were 1:1 randomized. Randomization defined Group A: patients who were administered Mictalase® suppositories twice a day for 5 days, then once a day for other 10 days; Group B: patients who did not receive Mictalase® ("controls"). Study endpoints were evaluated at 15 and 30 days postoperation. Primary endpoint included evaluation of effects of the suppository on irritative symptoms by administering IPSS + QoL questionnaire. Secondary endpoint included evaluation of effects on urinary tract infections by performance of urinalysis with urine culture. RESULTS: 111 patients were randomized: 56 in Group A received Mictalase®. Baseline and perioperative data were comparable. At 15-days, no significant differences were found in terms of IPSS + QoL scores and urinalysis parameters. A significant difference in the rate of positive urine cultures favored Group A (p = 0.04). At 30-days follow-up, significant differences were found in median IPSS score (6 [IQR 3-11] versus 10 [5-13], Group A vs B, respectively, p = 0.02). Urinalysis parameters and rate of positive urine cultures were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The present randomized trial investigated the efficacy of Mictalase® in control of irritative symptoms and prevention of lower urinary tract infections in patients undergoing ThuLEP. IPSS improvement 30-days postoperation was more pronounced in patients who received Mictalase®. Lower rate of positive urine culture favored Mictalase® group 15-days postoperatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on November 23rd, 2021-Registration number NCT05130918.

Learning curve of ThuLEP (Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate): Single-centre experience on initial consecutive 60 patients.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common problem among elderly men. Recently, laser prostate enucleations have gained popularity with successful results; however, it requires steep learning curves. The initial 60 cases of ThuLEP performed at our centre were retrospectively enrolled. A 200 W CyberTM Thulium laser (Quanta System, Italy) with 550 µm fibre was used, and a single surgeon highly experienced with transurethral resection performed all procedures. Patients were divided into three consecutive groups. Preoperative variables such as prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen and haemoglobin levels, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function scores and uroflowmetry parameters were all noted. The enucleated tissue weight, enucleation and morcellation times with efficiencies, hospitalization and catheterization times were calculated. Perioperative complications were also observed. The postoperative 6th month uroflowmetry parameters were evaluated and compared with prior ones. Morcellation and enucleation efficiencies, hospitalization and catheterization times, postoperative IPSS were significantly different between the groups. Complications were also compared between the groups, and only short-term perioperative complications were encountered. We aimed to evaluate initial cases of ThuLEP to provide information for beginners with management of early term possible complications. The learning curve for ThuLEP could be handled after exceeding 20 initial cases.

Urethral and bladder neck stenosis after thulium laser enucleation of the prostate: Analysis of risk factors in a series of 1003 patients.

We assessed the incidence and risks factors of bladder neck and urethral stenosis after Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate. Patients who underwent surgery at two centres were retrospectively reviewed (December 2014-June 2020). Exclusion criteria: previous urethral/prostatic surgery, pelvic irradiation, prostate cancer, neurogenic bladder, history of bladder neck and urethral stenosis, concomitant transurethral surgery, active urinary tract infection. Significant variables at univariate analysis (p < 0.05) were included in a multivariate logistic regression analysis to establish their association with bladder neck/urethral stenosis. One thousand and three patients were included. Median age was 69.0 (63.0-75.0) years. Median prostate volume was 65.0 (46.3-82.0) ml. Median follow-up was 31 (25-75) months. Thirty patients (2.99%) developed bladder neck stenosis [median time after surgery: 15 (11-17.75) months], 50 patients (4.98%) urethral stenosis [median time after surgery: 9 (7-11) months]. Men with bladder neck and urethral stenosis had significantly smaller prostate volume (median volume 43.5 ml vs. 66.0 ml, p = 0.008, and 52.0 ml vs. 66.0 ml, p = 0.009, respectively). At multivariable analysis, short surgical time predicted for bladder neck stenosis (OR 0.973; 95% CI 0.957-0.994, p = 0.002), and re-catheterization (OR 3.956; 95% CI 1.867-8.382, p < 0.001) for urethral stenosis, whereas prostate volume was significantly associated with a lower incidence of US (OR 0.984, 95% CI 0.972-0.998, p = 0.03).

Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA GUIDELINE PART II-Surgical Evaluation and Treatment.

PURPOSE: Surgical therapies for symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are many, and vary from minimally invasive office based to high-cost operative approaches. This Guideline presents effective evidence-based surgical management of male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary/attributed to BPH (LUTS/BPH). See accompanying algorithm for a detailed summary of procedures (figure[Figure: see text]). MATERIALS/METHODS: The Minnesota Evidence Review Team searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and AHRQ databases to identify eligible studies published between January 2007 and September 2020, which includes the initial publication (2018) and amendments (2019, 2020). The Team also reviewed articles identified by Guideline Panel Members. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table[Table: see text]). RESULTS: Twenty-four guideline statements pertinent to pre-operative and surgical management were developed. Appropriate levels of evidence and supporting text were created to direct urologic providers towards suitable and safe operative interventions for individual patient characteristics. A re-treatment section was created to direct attention to longevity and outcomes with individual approaches to help guide patient counselling and therapeutic decisions. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative and surgical management of BPH requires attention to individual patient characteristics and procedural risk. Clinicians should adhere to recommendations and familiarize themselves with criteria that yields the highest likelihood of surgical success when choosing a particular approach for a particular patient.

Combined top-down approach with low-power thulium laser enucleation of prostate: evaluation of one-year functional outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of combined top and down low power thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2017 and May 2019, after institutional board review approval, successfully consented patients underwent combined top and down low power ThuLEP. We used a 30 -W Thulium laser with a 550 µm laser fiber and a 26 Fr continuous flow resectoscope. We collected data related to prostate size, enucleation time, morcellation time, perioperative complications, and early outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent combined Top and down low power ThuLEP with mean age 67 ± 8. Acute urine retention was the main indication for surgery in 22% of patients, while the remaining had mean IPPS score 26 ± 3. The mean prostate volume was 102 ± 25 ml and the mean Qmax was 6 ± 2 ml/sec. Mean operative time was 103 ± 25 min, while; mean enucleation time was 80 ± 12 min, and mean morcellation time was 17 ± 6 min. The mean enucleated prostate volume was 73 ± 16 g and the mean hemoglobin drop was 1 ± 0.2 mg/dl. There was no need for blood transfusion and the mean hospital stay was 18 ± 4 h and catheters were removed on discharge. The 1st visit was at one month, and we observed significant mean Qmax improvement18 ± 5 ml/s. Our results showed no significant change of IIEF-5 score at 12-month follow-up compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: Low-power Thulium enucleation with a combined top and down technique provided a safe and efficacious outcome, that may reduce strenuous wrist flexion and eliminate the need for high-power Thulium laser device.

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP). The same but different-a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Various techniques for EEP exist. They differ by surgical steps and the source of energy. It is assumed that the latter is of minor importance, whereas adherence to the anatomical enucleation template determines the postoperative result. So far, no systematic review highlights the differences between the energy sources in use for anatomical EEP. This study will address selfsame topic. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was completed on September 1st, 2020. Studies comparing HoLEP, ThuLEP, DiLEP, or BipolEP with TUR-P providing 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. Two frequentist network meta-analyses were created to compare the techniques of EEP indirectly. RESULTS: 31 studies, including 4466 patients, were found eligible for our meta-analysis. Indirect pairwise comparison showed differences in surgery time between BipolEP and HolEP (MD - 16.72 min., 95% CI - 27.75 to - 5.69) and DiLEP and HoLEP (MD - 22.41 min., 95% CI - 39.43 to - 5.39). No differences in the amount of resected prostatic tissue, major and minor complications and postoperative catheterization time were found. The odds for blood transfusions were threefold higher for BipolEP than for HoLEP (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.02-10.5). The difference was not statistically significant when comparing prospective trials and matched-pair analysis only (OR 3.25, 95% CI 0.94-11.18). The Qmax 12 months after surgery was 2 ml/sec. higher for BipolEP than for DiLEP (MD 2.00, 95% CI 0.17-3.84) and 1.94 ml/sec. lower for DiLEP than for HoLEP (MD - 1.94, 95% CI - 3.65 to - 0.22). CONCLUSION: The energy source used for EEP has an impact on the intervention itself. BipolEP promotes surgical efficiency; laser techniques lower the risk of bleeding. REGISTRY: This meta-analysis is registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register registry with the registration number CRD42020205836.

Reasons to go for thulium-based anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate.

PURPOSE: To summarize the current evidence and the reasons to go for thulium-based anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP). METHODS: This review discusses the available literature on thulium-based AEEP. RESULTS: Thulium lasers operate at a wavelength between 1940 and 2013 nm. This wavelength, which has a low penetration depth in water, allows to perform smooth cuts in the prostatic tissue and allows urologists to perform various procedures: resection, vaporization, enucleation, or vapoenucleation of the prostate. Depending on the type of thulium laser, it can be used either in a continuous, or pulsed mode. CONCLUSION: In recent years, an increasing amount of evidence has described the thulium laser as a minimally invasive and size-independent treatment option for benign prostatic enlargement with excellent long-term results.

Ejaculation-sparing thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ES-ThuLEP): outcomes on a large cohort.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of a new ejaculation-sparing thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ES-ThuLEP) technique on sexual functions and micturition, in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to evaluate how the surgical technique of ES-ThuLEP can lead to ejaculation preservation. METHODS: A prospective study was carried out between January 2015 and January 2018 on patients with surgical indication for BPH, who wished to preserve ejaculation. The patients were treated with ES-ThuLEP and were evaluated before and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Three validated questionnaires (ICIQ-MLUTSsex, IIEF-5 and IPSS) were used to assess changes in ejaculation, erectile function and urinary symptoms. Uroflowmetry (Qmax and Qavg), post-void residual volume and voided volume were also evaluated, to assess micturition improvement. Patients with moderate to severe erectile dysfunction were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student's t test, Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty three patients were enrolled. Ejaculation was spared in 203 and 219 patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery. No significant differences were observed between erectile function before and after surgery: baseline IIEF-5 = 16.2 ± 4.47 vs 16.7 ± 2.9 (p = 0.419) and 17.7 ± 3.2 (p = 0.410) at 3 and 6 months. Significant improvement in urinary symptoms was achieved: baseline IPSS = 19.4 ± 7.24 vs 5.8 ± 4.3 (p = 0.032) and 3.9 ± 4.1 (p = 0.029) at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: ES-ThuLEP effectively preserved ejaculation in over two thirds of the patients without compromising micturition improvement or erectile function. ES-ThuLEP could be a valid treatment option for BPH in young and sexually active men.

A prospective multicenter randomized comparison between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP).

PURPOSE: To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive patients who underwent ThuLEP (n = 115), or HoLEP (n = 121) in three different centers. Intra and perioperative parameters were analyzed: operative time, enucleated tissue weight, irrigation volume, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay and complications. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively with the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the quality of life (QoL) score, post-void residual volume (PVR), PSA and maximum flow rate (Qmax). RESULTS: Preoperative variables in each study arm did not show any significant difference. Compared to HoLEP, ThuLEP showed similar operative time (63.69 vs 71.66 min, p = 0.245), enucleated tissue weight (48.84 vs 51.13 g, p = 0.321), catheterization time (1.9 vs 2.0 days, p = 0.450) and hospital stay (2.2 vs 2.8 days, p = 0.216), but resulted in less haemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.77 g/dL, p = 0.005). HoLEP presented a significantly higher number of patients with postoperative acute urinary retention and stress incontinence. No significant differences were found in PSA, Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QoL score during follow-up. CONCLUSION: ThuLEP and HoLEP both relieved lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP detemined reduced blood loss and early postoperative complications. Catheterization time, enucleated tissue, hospital stay, operative time and follow-up parameters did not show any significant difference.

Laser enucleation for prostates larger than 100 mL: Comparison of HoLEP and ThuLEP.

Recently, with the advancements in laser technology, Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) have come to the fore in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of HoLEP and ThuLEP in patients with >100 ml prostate volume. Patients who underwent HoLEP and ThuLEP between July 2017 and March 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups as HoLEP (Group 1, n = 121) and ThuLEP (Group 2, n = 104). Perioperative parameters, functional outcomes, continence status, intra and post-operative complications were compared between groups in the post-operative 1st and 6th month. No significant difference was found in terms of total laser energy (TLE), morcellation efficiency (ME), enucleated tissue weight (ETW), complication rates (CR) and continence status of patients between both groups (p > .05). In favour of ThuLEP group, there were statistically significant differences regarding total operation time (TOT), laser efficiency (LE), enucleation time (ET) and enucleation efficiency (EE) between groups (p ≤ .05). HoLEP and ThuLEP can be used safely and effectively in prostates larger than 100 ml.