Search

Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is routinely performed with a 24F, 26F, or a 28F scope. Proponents of the larger scopes propose that a bigger sheath size allows for superior flow and visibility leading to a more efficient operation and better hemostasis. Those utilizing the smaller scopes suggest that the smaller sheath is less traumatic, resulting in lower stricture rates and temporary incontinence. We sought to compare outcomes of ambulatory HoLEP using the 24F and 28F laser scope. Materials and Methods: From May 2022 to March 2023, we randomized patients undergoing HoLEP (<200 cm3 in size) 1:1 to either a 24F or 28F scope. The primary outcome was differences in surgical duration between groups (minutes). Secondary outcomes included surgeon scope evaluation and postoperative patient results. Results: There was no difference in patient characteristics in those randomized to 28F (n = 76) vs 24F (n = 76) (p > 0.05) scopes. Procedural duration and efficiencies were not different between groups (all p > 0.05). The 28F scope was associated with improved surgeon-graded irrigation flow and visibility (p < 0.001). Patients treated with the 28F scope were more likely to achieve effective same-day trial of void (SDTOV) (28F 94.3% vs 24F 82.1%, p = 0.048) and have a shorter length of stay (LOS) (28F 7.0 vs 24F 11.9 hours, p = 0.014), however, rates of same-day discharge (SDD) were not statistically different (28F 87.8% vs 24F 78.4%, p = 0.126). There was no difference between the cohorts in rates of 90-day emergency room presentations, re-admissions, complications, or functional ouctomes (p > 0.05). Conclusions: We identified no clear advantage of scope size with regard to intraoperative or postoperative outcomes at 3-month follow-up due to scope size. However, if SDD is part of your postoperative pathway, the 28F scope may shorten LOS and increase rates of effective SDTOV. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05308017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA (OTA) injection is a well-established treatment option for refractory overactive bladder; however, its use at the time of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for men with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and severe storage symptoms has not been previously reported. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified men with BOO and severe storage symptoms who underwent treatment with 200 U of intradetrusor OTA (Botox®) at the time of HoLEP. Patients were propensity score matched to a cohort of HoLEP-only patients based on age, Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index (M-ISI) score, preoperative urinary retention, urge incontinence, and prostate size. Perioperative, postoperative, and patient-reported outcomes were examined between groups. Results: We identified 82 men who underwent HoLEP, including 41 patients in the OTA group and 41 patients in the control group. There was no difference in operative times (59 minutes OTA vs 55 minutes control, p = 0.2), rates of same-day trial of void (TOV) (92% OTA vs 94% control, p = 0.7), or rates of same-day discharge (88% OTA vs 85% control, p = 0.6) between groups. There was no difference in temporary postoperative urinary retention (7% OTA vs 2% control, p = 0.3) between groups. Patients who received OTA injections had a significant reduction in their incontinence scores at 3-month follow-up (M-ISI −8, interquartile range [IQR]: −13 to 0, p < 0.001), whereas control patients did not (M-ISI −5, IQR: −8 to −1, p = 0.2). There was no difference in rates of 90-day complications between groups (OTA 10% vs control 5%, p = 0.7). Conclusions: Intradetrusor OTA at the time of HoLEP is safe and is associated with improved urinary incontinence scores and AUA Symptom Score. Rates of same-day discharge and same-day TOV after HoLEP were not affected by OTA. These findings support the role of OTA as an adjunct to surgical intervention in men with incontinence in the presence of BOO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed the practice of medicine in America. During the March 2020 lockdown, elective cases were canceled to conserve hospital beds/resources resulting in financial losses for health systems and delayed surgical care. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) has been shown to be safe and could be a strategy to ensure patients receive care that has been delayed, conserve hospital resources, and maximize cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of patients undergoing aPCNL against standard PCNL (sPCNL). Materials and Methods: Ninty-eight patients underwent PCNL at Indiana University Methodist Hospital, a tertiary referral center, by three expert surgeons from January 2020 to September 2020. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the 30-day rates of emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and complications between sPCNL and aPCNL. Secondary outcomes included cost analysis and stone-free rates (SFRs). Propensity score matching was performed to ensure the groups were balanced. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 using independent t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables. Results: Ninety-eight patients underwent PCNL during the study period (sPCNL = 75 and aPCNL = 23). After propensity score matching, 42 patients were available for comparison (sPCNL = 19 and aPCNL = 23). We found no difference in 30-day ED visits, readmissions, or complications between the two groups. aPCNL resulted in cost savings of $5327 ± 442 per case. SFRs were higher for aPCNL compared with sPCNL. Conclusions: aPCNL appears safe to perform and does not have a higher rate of ED visits or readmissions compared with sPCNL. aPCNL may also be cost-effective compared with sPCNL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]