Does perioperative outcome of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate depend on prostate size?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In conventional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), perioperative morbidity resulting from causes such as blood loss and TUR syndrome increases with prostate size. Therefore, TURP is restricted to small and medium-sized glands. The present study aimed to find out whether perioperative parameters of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) other than operation time and weight of resected tissue were dependent on prostate size. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 384 patients were treated with HoLEP (holmium:YAG laser, 2.0 J, 40 or 50 Hz, 80 or 100 W, 550-nm bare fiber) for acute removal of obstructing benign hyperplastic tissue. Among them, 111 patients (28.9%) had prostates of <40 g (group 1), 152 (39.6%) had prostates of 40 to 79 g (group 2), and 121 (31.5%) had prostates of >/=80 g (range 80-260) (group 3). The perioperative outcomes of the three groups were compared. A total of 346 patients completed the 1-month postoperative assessment. RESULTS: The mean prostate sizes were 31.8 g, 56 g, and 98.7 g for groups 1, 2, and 3 (P<0.0001 group 1 v group 2 v group 3). The mean resected tissue weight was 19.5 g v 34.4 g (P= 0.009) v 70.1 g (range 50-220) (P< 0.0001). The mean operation time was 64.3 v 84.2 (P= 0.009) v 118.4 minutes (P< 0.0001). The mean hemoglobin loss was 0.9 v 1.2 (NS) v 1.9 g/dL (P< 0.001). The overall correlation between hemoglobin loss and prostate size in all patients was very weak (r = 0.229) and just exceeded the level of significance (r = 0.2). In all three groups, the median postoperative catheter time was 1 day, and the median postoperative hospital stay was 2 days. The HoLEP resulted in an immediate and significant improvement of American Urological Association Symptom Scores, peak urinary flow rates, and postvoiding residual urine volumes (P< 0.0001) 1 month after the operation, without significant differences between the groups. The rate of complications was similar in all three groups. None of the patients needed blood transfusions. There were no perioperative deaths. CONCLUSION: In HoLEP, perioperative morbidity and postoperative micturition improvement do not depend on prostate size. Therefore, in contrast to TURP, HoLEP is equally suitable for small, medium-size, and large prostate glands.     

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in Jehovah’s Witness patients

Purpose

To evaluate if HoLEP is a viable option for male patients with medication-refractory urinary symptoms due to an enlarged prostate who are surgical candidates, but do not accept blood product transfusion.

Materials and methods

Between August 2008 and March 2019, nine Jehovah’s Witness patients were undergoing HoLEP for relief of lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary retention. We described change in hemoglobin, change in PSA, enucleated prostate weight, enucleation and morcellation times, length of stay, and postoperative retention rate.

Results

The average age was 71.4 years (range 53–87). Urinary retention requiring catheterization was present in seven patients (78%). Two patients had a known diagnosis of prostate cancer preoperatively. The mean preoperative PSA on average was 21.6 ng/dL. Patients had a wide range of gland sizes, with a mean enucleated weight of 141 g (range 18–344 g). Mean reduction in hemoglobin was 16.9% following HoLEP. All patients managed to void postoperatively. All but one patient went home on postoperative day 1, and this patient went home on postoperative day 2. No patients required blood product transfusion or return to the operating room for clot irrigation postoperatively.

Conclusion

HoLEP is a reasonable option for Jehovah’s Witness and other patients with contraindications to blood product transfusion requiring surgical management of urinary symptoms due to enlarged prostate.

     

Is transurethral vaporization a remake of transurethral resection of the prostate?

PURPOSE: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is still the gold standard method to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) is compared with the transurethral resection of benign prostatic hyperplasia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a 10-month period, 78 patients presenting with moderate and severe symptomatic BPH were randomized into two groups. A total of 38 patients underwent TURP, and 40 men underwent TUVP. The protocol included urinary flow rate (Qmax), symptomatology evaluated by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (I-PSS), and an ultrasonographic estimate of the postvoiding residual volume (PVR). The TUVP was carried out using a regular loop with the electrical source set at 250 to 300 W in the pure cutting mode. The same technique was used in the TURP, but the electrosurgical unit was set at 50 to 80 W for cutting and 50 W for hemostasis. The mean follow-up was 17 months (range 11-23 months). RESULTS: The data showed significant improvement in the symptom score, maximum flow rate, and postvoiding residual urine volume after treatment (P<0.01) in both groups. Comparing the symptom score, there was no difference between the two techniques (P = 0.88), the same occurring with the PVR (P = 0.78). However, the Qmax was higher after TURP (P = 0.02). The amount of tissue resected showed no statistical difference between the two techniques (P>0.05). Operative time, postoperative irrigation, catheter removal, and hospital stay were better with TUVP (P = 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference (P = 0.003) when we compared the occurrence of retrograde ejaculation with TURP (32%) and TUVP (65%) The TUVP using a regular loop, in addition to the advantage of the equipment and technique already being familiar to urologists, is efficient and reduces capital expenditure. CONCLUSION: The TUVP is a remake of TURP, with higher energy offering better results.     

Time to rebrand transurethral resection of the prostate?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Transurethral resection of the prostate remains the gold standard treatment for benign prostatic obstruction. Owing to the significant morbidity traditionally associated with the procedure, a large number of expensive, high-energy alternative treatments have been developed, which have enjoyed varying degrees of success. At the same time, transurethral resection of the prostate has evolved into a safer operation whilst maintaining its excellent efficacy. This review aims to outline the major advances that have occurred recently in transurethral resection of the prostate. RECENT FINDINGS: Optimizing each stage of transurethral resection of the prostate can result in reduced morbidity. Preoperative treatment with oral antiandrogens and 5-reductase inhibitors appears to reduce intraoperative bleeding, appropriate prophylactic antibiotic regimens reduce postoperative infection rates, improved instrumentation and diathermy delivery can reduce intraoperative bleeding and hence reduce postoperative irrigation requirements, and alcohol monitoring of irrigant absorption can eliminate transurethral resection syndrome. Careful patient selection, meticulous surgical technique combined with an aggressive postoperative irrigation and catheter removal policy can result in transurethral resection of the prostate being performed safely on a day-case basis. SUMMARY: Whilst our attention has been distracted by the many alternative treatments brought to the market over the past decade or so, transurethral resection of the prostate has been undergoing a quiet evolution. With fine tuning of all aspects of the patient journey we can now offer a procedure with excellent long-term efficacy combined with reduced morbidity and inpatient stay.     

Is transurethral vaporesection of the prostate better than standard transurethral resection?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to undertake an evaluation of the comparative efficacy and morbidity of transurethral vaporesection (TUVRP) and standard transurethral resection (TURP), two resection techniques using loops of different thickness and power settings. METHODS: In a prospective study, 185 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic enlargement were randomized to undergo either TUVRP or standard TURP. Inclusion criteria were benign prostatic enlargement, moderate or severe lower urinary tract symptoms and/or a significant urinary residual (>60 ml), while patients with previous prostatic surgery, prostate cancer or neurogenic bladder disorders were excluded. Prostate size, residual urine, urinary flow rate and symptoms as well as associated bother (using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the American Urological Association Bother Score (AUA-BS)) were assessed preoperatively. Intraoperative blood loss and fluid absorption were evaluated by measuring serum hemoglobin and respiratory alcohol concentration. Patients were followed for 1 year with the evaluation of flow rates, residual urine volumes, symptom scores and complications at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A significant difference was seen in the weight of the resected tissue (TURP 30.3 g vs. TUVRP 21.9 g, p<0.003). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intraoperative fluid absorption or procedure time between TUVRP and TURP, although more patients in the TURP group required blood transfusions (13 vs. 7) and mean procedure time was longer for TUVRP (71.0 vs. 65.9 min). The postoperative improvements in IPSS, AUA-BS, residual and Q(max) were significant in both groups (p<0.01 for each) but without difference between the two groups. The rate of complications (urinary tract infections, urethral stricture, reintervention rate) during follow-up was the same in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective randomized comparison of the clinical outcome and morbidity of standard TURP versus TUVRP, there were no significant differences in any of the parameters evaluated except for the weight of the resected tissue.     

Does detrusor underactivity affect the results of transurethral resection of prostate?

International Urology and Nephrology - We aimed to evaluate the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and diagnosed to have...     

“Finding the needle in a haystack”: oncologic evaluation of patients treated for LUTS with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)

Purpose

To evaluate oncologic parameters of men with bothersome LUTS undergoing surgical treatment with HoLEP or TURP.

Methods

Five hundred and eighteen patients undergoing HoLEP (n = 289) or TURP (n = 229) were retrospectively analyzed for total PSA, prostate volume, PSA density, history of prostate biopsy, resected prostate weight, and histopathological features. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of incidental PCa (iPCa).

Results

Men undergoing HoLEP had a significantly higher total PSA (median 5.5 vs. 2.3 ng/mL) and prostate volume (median 80 vs. 41 cc), and displayed a greater reduction of prostate volume after surgery compared to TURP patients (median 71 vs. 50%; all p < 0.001). With a prevalence of incidental PCa (iPCa) of 15 and 17% for HoLEP and TURP, respectively, the choice of procedure had no influence on the detection of iPCa (p = 0.593). However, a higher rate of false-negative preoperative prostate biopsies was noted among iPCa patients in the HoLEP arm (40 vs. 8%, p = 0.007). In multivariate logistic regression, we identified patient age (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01–1.07, p = 0.013) and PSA density (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.09–4.18, p = 0.028) as independent predictors for the detection of iPCa.

Conclusions

Despite differences in oncologic parameters, the choice of technique had no influence on the detection of iPCa. Increased patient age and higher PSA density were associated with iPCa. A higher rate of false-negative preoperative prostate biopsies was noted in HoLEP patients. Therefore, diagnostic assessment of LUTS patients requires a more adapted approach to exclude malignancy, especially in those with larger prostates.

     

Does anaesthetic technique affect the outcome after transurethral resection of the prostate?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the choice of anaesthetic (spinal or general) has any influence on outcomes after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 261 patients undergoing TURP between October 1995 and July 1998 were selected for a matched-cohort study. There were 87 complete datasets for cases performed under general anaesthesia and each was matched to two patients (174) from those undergoing spinal anaesthesia. The cohorts were matched by age, physical status score and date of operation. The primary outcome measures were length of stay in the recovery room and satisfaction with postoperative analgesia. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in major outcomes. There was a higher incidence of some minor adverse events in the group having general anaesthesia. Back pain was more common after spinal anaesthesia. CONCLUSION: Spinal anaesthesia was not associated with an improved outcome after TURP. The choice of anaesthesia should be made by the patient, surgeon and anaesthetist on the basis of the known risks of particular adverse events.     

Are there acid base changes during transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)?

Acid base status during transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been almost neglected. We therefore measured the acid base status and interpreted the observed changes according to the Stewart approach. The Stewart model focuses more on the influence of serum electrolyte concentrations on acid base changes than does the conventional Henderson-Hasselbalch approach. In 20 patients undergoing TURP, the following variables were determined: PaO(2), PaCO(2), pH(a), actual bicarbonate, standard base excess, serum concentration of sodium, potassium, chloride, lactate, and total protein. A study group (n = 11) and a control group (n = 9) were built, depending on the maximal amount of fluid absorption estimated with the aid of ethanol concentration monitoring in the expired gas. The study group developed a mild acidosis with a decrease in pH from 7.41 to 7.37 (P = 0.037), compared with a very discrete pH decrease from 7.44 to 7.42 in the control group. We found that moderate irrigant absorption during TURP leads to a specific metabolic acidosis. We speculate that larger amounts of irrigant absorption may cause a more severe metabolic acidosis. As the constellation of independently pH regulating variables appears to be typical for TURP, this acidosis could be named "TURP-acidosis." IMPLICATIONS: We measured acid base status in 20 patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate comparing a larger fluid absorption group with a minor or no fluid absorption group. We postulate the development of a typical metabolic transurethral resection of the prostate-acidosis caused by irrigant absorption.     

Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate: is it any better than conventional transurethral resection of the prostate?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP), compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as a treatment for men with symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 235 men with symptomatic BPE in four hospitals in the South-East of England were randomized to TUVP (115) and TURP (120). Patients were assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the Short Form-36 (SF-36), EuroQol and sexual function questionnaire, uroflowmetry, ultrasonographic measurement of residual urine volume, pressure-flow urodynamics and transrectal ultrasonography. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the objective and subjective outcome after TURP and TUVP. The latter was associated with a lower transfusion rate than TURP but this did not result in an overall reduction in complications. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. Overall, the two operations produced equivalent results and equivalent complication rates. CONCLUSION: TUVP is an effective treatment for symptomatic BPE, with results equivalent to TURP. TUVP has not led to the expected reduction in early postoperative morbidity or shorter hospital stays.     

Does endoscopic laser ablation of the prostate stand the test of time? Five-year results from a multicentre randomized controlled trial of endoscopic laser ablation against transurethral resection of the prostate

OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term objective and subjective outcome of patients with benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) treated by endoscopic laser ablation of the prostate (ELAP), as part of a multicentre randomized controlled trial of ELAP against TURP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initially, 151 patients with BPE were randomized to undergo either ELAP or TURP, starting in March 1992. ELAP was performed using the Urolasetrade mark fibre (Bard, Covington, GA, USA) in conjunction with a Nd:YAG laser source. All patients who had originally participated in the study were approached 5 years later to obtain a urological history, American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score and two measurements of urinary flow rate, with an ultrasonographic assessment of the postvoid residual urine volume (PVR). RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 61 months; 109 patients were traced, comprising 69 who were alive and well, and had undergone no further bladder outlet surgery, 26 who had required revision surgery, 12 who were dead or terminally ill and three who had dementia. Both ELAP and TURP produced sustained improvements in mean AUA score, maximum flow rate and PVR, with respective values at 5 years of 6.3, 17.8 mL/s and 76 mL, and 6.5, 20.0 mL/s and 55 mL. Eighteen of 47 ELAP patients (38%) and eight of 51 (16%) TURP patients underwent revision surgery within the follow-up. CONCLUSION: ELAP and TURP produced similar subjective and objective outcomes at 5 years. The re-operation rate after ELAP was more than double that after TURP and suggests that ELAP should not be used routinely in the management of men with BPE.