Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): the endourologic alternative to open prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate HoLEP for patients with enlarged prostate (traditionally treated by open prostatectomy) with long-term follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 225 consecutive patients presenting with lower urinary symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia with large prostate (>80 cc) who underwent HoLEP. Enucleation time, morcellation time, enucleated tissue weight, catheterization time, hospital stay, voiding outcome parameters, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Mean preoperative prostate volume was 126+/-45.1 cc (range 80-351, median 111.2 cc), and resected tissue weight was 86.5 g. Mean follow-up was 31+/-12 months (median 24 months). Mean catheter time and hospital stay were 1.3 and 1.2 days, respectively. Patient symptom scores and peak flow rates were significantly improved immediately after surgery and continued to improve during subsequent follow up. Two patients required intraoperative blood transfusion, and a third patient needed blood transfusion in the early postoperative period for persistent hematuria. Bladder neck contracture and urethral stricture developed in 0.4% and 1.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP represents a safe and effective treatment for patients with symptomatic large prostates. It offers patients who traditionally required open prostatectomy the alternative of being treated endoscopically with minimal blood loss, short catheterization time and hospital stay.     

Prostate cancer detected after Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP): significance of transrectal ultrasonography

Purpose

To identify predictors of incidental prostate cancer following Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 458 consecutive patients who underwent HoLEP. Patients were classified into two groups: patients who received prostate biopsy prior to HoLEP (biopsy group, n = 174) and patients who did not (non-biopsy group, n = 284). The two groups were compared. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the predictive factors.

Results

A total of 27 patients (5.9 %) were incidentally diagnosed with prostate cancer. The incidence of prostate cancer was not significantly different between the two groups (biopsy group vs. non-biopsy group: 6.9 vs. 5.3 %, p = 0.48). Using multivariate analysis, a hypoechoic lesion identified by transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) was the only predictor of incidental prostate cancer (odds ratio 2.829; 95 % confidence interval 1.061–7.539; p = 0.038). In the biopsy group, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics including prostate size, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, digital rectal examination (DRE) findings, and TRUS findings, between patients with and without prostate cancer. However, in the non-biopsy group, a hypoechoic lesion was found more frequently in patients with prostate cancer (prostate cancer vs. benign prostatic hyperplasia: 20.0 vs. 3.3 %, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Prior negative prostate biopsy does not rule out the possibility of prostate cancer after HoLEP. The presence of a hypoechoic lesion on TRUS might be helpful to predict incidental prostate cancer after HoLEP in patients with normal PSA and negative DRE. Prostate biopsy prior to HoLEP should be considered in these patients.     

钬激光前列腺剜除术

钬激光前列腺剜除术(holmium laser enucleation of the prostate,HoLEP)是引进国外的一种高新技术,手术操作难度大,HoLEP可达到与开放手术完全相同的解剖学目标,与经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection ofthe prostate,TURP)金标准相比,特别对前列腺尖部的处理远胜一筹,可沿外括约肌与前列腺包膜分成3块或整块完整剥离前列腺,且更微创、安全、手术时间短、出血少、术后恢复快,目前作者已成功完成>3000例手术,无1例严重并发症。HoLEP病例选择:凡能接受麻醉、能接受HoLEP操作,均可行HoLEP。本文详细介绍了钬激光前列腺剜除方法与技巧,手术操作要点。作者对前列腺剜除术操作结合前列腺腔内外解剖特点作了全面剖析与点评,对行钬激光前列腺剜除术对术者的要求、手术完成标准以及损伤与防治等问题进行了详细的介绍。     

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in benign prostate hyperplasia patients with or without oral antithrombotic drugs: a meta-analysis

International Urology and Nephrology - The continuous intake of antithrombotic drugs during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) remains nonconsensual. We aim to pool those...     

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): long-term results, reoperation rate, and possible impact of the learning curve

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term outcomes and reoperation rate of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for patients with symptomatic enlarged prostate, including patients who were operated during the learning curve. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 118 patients who underwent HoLEP between March 1998 and February 2001 at our institution. This analysis represented our initial experience with the technique reflecting our learning curve. The voiding outcome parameters, operative duration time, enucleation time, morcellation time, eucleated tissue weight, catheterization time, hospital stay, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 76.5 yr (range: 59-93) and the mean preoperative prostate volume was 59.3 cc (range: 20-172). The mean follow-up period was 49.4+/-28.1 mo. The mean catheter time and hospital stay was 1.3 and 1.5 d, respectively. Seventy-eight percent of the patients were discharged home within 24h after surgery. For the patients (n=26) who had objective data at 6 yr postoperatively, mean maximum flow rate increased from 6.3 to 16.2ml/s and mean postvoid residual urine decreased from 232 to 41.2ml (p<0.0001). Mean International Prostate Symptom Score improved from 17.3 to 5.6 (p<0.0001). Bladder-neck contracture and urethral stricture developed in 0.8% and 1.7% of patients, respectively. The reoperation rate for recurrent benign prostatic hyperplasia obstruction was 4.2%. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP represents a safe and effective treatment for patients with symptomatic enlarged prostate. The improvement in outcome parameters is durable, and the late complications and reoperation rate are very low.     

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate can be taught: the first learning experience

OBJECTIVE: To present the initial experience of a senior urology resident with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and to address the difficulties encountered while learning this technique, describing the detailed operative technique and pitfalls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July and August 2001, 27 patients were treated using HoLEP administered by one senior urology resident (A.H.) under the supervision of an experienced urologist (M.M.E.). Patients were assessed before and 1 month after HoLEP by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the associated quality-of-life (QoL) score, and measurements of maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and postvoid residual urine (PVR) volume. The prostate volume was measured before HoLEP using transrectal ultrasonography. The 27 patients were compared retrospectively with 118 who underwent HoLEP by the supervising urologist. Each of the 27 procedures was taped and reviewed. RESULTS: The mean (range) prostate size was 54.8 (21-122) mL (A.H.) and 61.7 (20.5-172) mL (M.M.E.). The mean operative duration was 98 (50-175) min and the mean enucleation time 68 (29-108) min. The improvements in IPSS, QoL score, Qmax and PVR were highly significant (P < 0.001), with mean values before and after HoLEP of 16.8 and 8.2, 3.1 and 1.4, 7.7 and 20.8 mL/s, and 232 and 41.3 mL, respectively. Of the 27 patients, 23 (85%) were catheter-free on the first day after HoLEP; the mean hospital stay was 1.8 days. All these results were comparable with the results of 118 patients treated by M.M.E. The two most difficult technical steps identified were the initial apical enucleation and the incision of the remaining antero-apical mucosal attachment of the lateral lobes. The operator became adept with the HoLEP technique after a mean of 20 patients. CONCLUSION: HoLEP can be learnt but requires longer training than standard transurethral resection. Extensive experience with transurethral surgery and the supervision of an experienced urologist are prerequisites for success.     

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in critically ill patients with technique modification

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of the holmium:YAG laser for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia has developed substantially over the last decade. We present our experience with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in critically ill patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 1999 to May 2003, 40 critically ill patients with a mean age of 64.7 years (range 48-87 years) underwent HoLEP. Critically ill was defined as major comorbidity, including coronary and peripheral vascular disease, renal transplantation/immunosuppression, postradiation bleeding and sloughing, end-stage renal disease, advanced diabetes, severe anemia (hemoglobin <9.0 g/L), anticoagulant dependency, or bleeding diathesis. Preoperative and postoperative changes in hemoglobin (Hb) and sodium (Na), transfusion rates, and urethral catheter time were evaluated. This is a one-time instrument-insertion technique with the use of a large fiber and modification of the median lobe resection. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in Hb (8.7 g/L to 8.5 g/L) or Na (135 mmol/L to 137 mmol/L). One patient was returned to the operating room for bleeding, and this and one other patient required postoperative blood transfusions. The urethral catheter was removed within 36 hours in 34 patients, and all patients were catheter free within 4 weeks of surgery. CONCLUSION: In our experience, HoLEP can be performed safely and effectively in patients who are critically ill.     

Understanding holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) recovery: Assessing patient expectations and understanding

IntroductionAlthough holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a highly effective surgery, there is a variable recovery period where patients may experience hematuria, dysuria, or urinary incontinence (UI). Despite preoperative consultation, there is a paucity of literature examining the effectiveness of physician-patient communication in preparing the patient for the postoperative recovery period. We sought to examine recovery expectations as a patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric for HoLEP.MethodsWith institutional review board approval, we queried our electronic medical record and retrospective clinical registry to identify 50 consecutive patients that underwent HoLEP from November 2019 to March 2020 by two endourologists. Patients were provided questionnaires via Twistle^© ≥6 months postoperatively. Patient demographics and perioperative course was examined in the context of responses. Our primary objective was determining whether patients felt they had a reasonable understanding of the recovery process.ResultsWe observed a 92% (46/50) response rate, with an average patient age of 69.4 years (range 55–88). Overall, 91.3% (42/46) felt they had a reasonable understanding of the recovery. Additionally, 97.8% (45/46) were aware of temporary UI, with 87% having ≥1 episodes of UI after catheter removal. We found 47.8% (22/46) of patients expected UI to resolve within 30 days, while 8.6% expected >90 days of UI. All patients were aware of the risk of hematuria, with 93.5% (43/46) expecting resolution within 30 days (<7 days: 47.8%; 7–14 days: 28.3%; 15–30 days: 17.4%).ConclusionsAlthough surgical technique continues to improve HoLEP, ensuring adequate physician-patient communication to optimize expectations is crucial. We report patient understanding of HoLEP recovery and areas for future improvement.     

Safety and feasibility of concomitant surgery during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP)

Purpose

To determine the feasibility and outcomes associated with performing simultaneous surgical procedures during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and concomitant urologic conditions.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients that underwent a HoLEP was performed. Patients undergoing a concomitant procedure at the time of HoLEP were selected and stratified based on complexity of the secondary procedure (simple, intermediate, and complex) and matched based on age and prostate volume to patients undergoing only a HoLEP. Baseline characteristics, preoperative, operative, and postoperative outcomes were collected.

Results

A total of 372 HoLEPs were performed. Thirty-eight (10.2 %) patients underwent concomitant procedures at the time of HoLEP. Compared to the simple and intermediate secondary surgical procedures, the matched control group that underwent a HoLEP alone did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in the preoperative, operative, or postoperative outcomes. Patients with a complex secondary surgical procedure at the time of HoLEP had statistically significant differences in operative time (221 vs. 65 min, p = 0.007), estimated blood loss (92 vs. 33 mL, p = 0.012), catheter time (8.5 vs. 1 day, p = 0.041), and length of hospitalization (2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.032) compared to the control group.

Conclusions

Obstructive voiding symptoms secondary to BPH are common in older patients and may coincide with other concomitant lower urinary tract pathology that may require surgical intervention. Rather than staging surgical interventions, it appears that definitive treatment for BPH with HoLEP is safe and efficacious in those patients that also require secondary procedures.     

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for men with urinary retention

PURPOSE: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an established procedure for the treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. We performed a study to examine a group of patients in urinary retention treated by HoLEP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 164 consecutive patients with urinary retention who underwent HoLEP between January 2000 and August 2004 was performed. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 72.1 years (range 34 to 95). Mean duration of urinary retention was 28.9 days (range 2 to 365). Mean preoperative transrectal ultrasound measured prostate volume was 107.1 cc (range 5 to 242). Mean weight of resected tissue was 81.9 grams (range 2.5 to 271). Mean duration of postoperative catheterization and hospitalization was 22.5 hours (range 2 to 240) and 33.7 hours (range 2 to 144), respectively. All patients were able to void following treatment and remain catheter free. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP is an effective treatment, with low morbidity, for patients with urinary retention. These results suggest that HoLEP may be the ideal treatment for men with urinary retention due to benign prostatic obstruction.     

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: results at 6 years

OBJECTIVES: The issue of durability is an important concern when evaluating new surgical modalities. To date, only 24-mo data have been published on holmium enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) despite its widespread use worldwide although 4-yr data exist for the earlier technique of holmium resection. This study addresses the issue of durability of HoLEP. METHODS: All patients who had undergone HoLEP and been evaluated in three prospective trials conducted at this institution between 1997 and 2002 were evaluated. Patients available at follow-up had data assessed on the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximal flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QOL), International Continence Society Male Short Form (ICS-SF), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII), and continence questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 6.1 yr (range: 4.1-8.1 yr). The mean age of the patients at follow-up was 75.7 yr (range: 58-88 yr). Of 71 HoLEP patients originally studied on the protocol, 38 (54%) were available for analysis, 14 were deceased, and 19 were lost to follow-up. The mean IPSS for this group was 8.5 (range: 0-24) and Q(max) 19 ml/s (range: 6-28 ml/s). The QOL score was 1.8 (range: 0-5) and the BPHII 2.0 (range: 0-11). One patient (1.4%) had undergone reoperation, an additional HoLEP. Overall, 92% were either satisfied or extremely satisfied with their outcome. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP is durable and most patients remain satisfied or extremely satisfied with the long-term outcome.