Search

Context: Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are two minimally invasive alternatives to simple prostatectomy, which is considered the standard treatment in large prostate glands. It remains unclear which of the two is superior in terms of outcome and complications. Objective: To compare perioperative and functional outcomes of RASP vs EEP. Evidence Acquisition: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and in line with the PRISMA criteria. The database search included clinicaltrials.gov, Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL, and Web of Science and was using the PICO criteria. All comparative trials were considered. Risk of bias was assessed with the revised ROBINS-I tool. Evidence Synthesis: Seven hundred sixty studies were identified, 4 of which were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis, reporting on a total of 901 patients with follow-up up to 24 months. Hemoglobin drop (mean difference [MD] confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 g/dL [0.09–0.58]), the rate of blood transfusions (odds ratio [OR] [CI]: 5.01 [1.60–15.61]) catheterization time (MD [CI]: 3.26 days [1.30–5.23]), and length of hospital stay (LoS) (MD [CI]: 1.94 days [1.11–2.76]) were significantly lower in EEP. No significant differences were seen in operating time and enucleation weight. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of postoperative urinary retention, postoperative transient incontinence, and complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Functional results were similar, with no significant differences in International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum urinary flow rate at follow-up. Conclusion: Both EEP and RASP offer excellent improvement of symptoms due to prostatic hyperplasia. EEP has lower blood loss, shorter catheterization time, and LoS and should be the first choice if available. RASP remains an attractive alternative for extremely large glands, in concomitant diseases, or whenever EEP is not available. Review Registration Number (PROSPERO): CRD42021226901 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To critically appraise the methodological rigour of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) vis-à-vis BPH surgery as used by specialist research associations in the US, Europe and UK, and to compare whether the guidelines cover all or only some of the available treatments. Methods: The current guidelines issued by the EUA, AUA and NICE associations have been analyzed by 4 appraisers using the AGREE-II instrument. We also compared the recommendations given in the guidelines for surgical and minimally invasive treatment to find out which of these CPGs include most of the available treatment options. Results: According to the AGREE II tool, the median scores of domains were: domain 1 scope and purpose 66.7%, domain 2 stakeholder involvement 50.0%, domain 3 rigor of development 65.1%, domain 4 clarity of presentation 80.6%, domain 5 applicability 33.3%, domain 6 editorial independence 72.9%. The overall assessment according to AGREE II is 83.3%. The NICE guideline scored highest on 5 out of 6 domains and the highest overall assessment score (91.6%). The EAU guideline scored lowest on 4 out of 6 domains and has the lowest overall assessment score (79.1%). Conclusions: The analyzed CPGs comprehensively highlight the minimally invasive and surgical treatment options for BPH. According to the AGREE II tool, the domains for clarity of presentation and editorial independence received the highest scores. The stakeholder involvement and applicability domains were ranked as the lowest. Improving the CPG in these domains may help to improve the clinical utility and applicability of CPGs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prostate size estimation is a valuable clinical measure widely utilized in urology. This study evaluated the accuracy of preoperative transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) compared to radical prostatectomy specimens and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in estimating prostate volume and identifying presence of median lobe, across different size groups, using the standard ellipsoid formula. The effect of median lobe on accuracy was also assessed. Materials and Methods: Ninety-eight men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were enrolled in this study. Preoperative evaluation of prostate volume was done using measurements obtained from TAUS using the Clarius C3 handheld wireless point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and from TRUS Clarius EC7. Participants were grouped based on prostate size (<30, 30–60, and >60 g). Mean absolute percentage of error was used to evaluate accuracy. Mean percentage of error determined if there was an overestimation or underestimation. Correlation between each TAUS size group, true prostate weight and TRUS was assessed. Results: Irrespective of body mass index, TAUS accurately identified median lobe in all men. No statistically significant difference was found between specimen weight and TAUS prostate size for the >60 g group. Among this same group, a strong correlation was noted between specimen weight and TAUS prostate size (r = 0.911, p < 0.001). There was also a strong correlation between TAUS and TRUS measurements for this group (r = 0.950, p < 0.001). Presence of median lobe did not have an impact on measurement accuracy. Conclusions: Bedside handheld wireless POCUS provides rapid, inexpensive, noninvasive, and clinically accurate TAUS prostate assessments for larger prostates. Such features as identifying median lobes and measuring prostate volumes are valuable tools, whereas patient counseling on lower urinary tract symptoms, elevated prostate-specific antigen, and benign prostate hyperplasia are surgical options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Tm:YAG vapoenucleation was introduced as a minimally invasive treatment in patients with benign prostatic obstruction. The efficiency and safety of Tm:YAG vapoenucleation must still be confirmed in large volume prostates to prove the size independence of this promising treatment option. We evaluated the safety and efficiency of Tm:YAG vapoenucleation in patients with a prostate volume of 80 cc or greater and benign prostatic obstruction during a 12-month followup. Materials and Methods: Included in this trial were 90 consecutive patients undergoing 90 W Tm:YAG vapoenucleation. Vapoenucleation was done using the 2 μm continuous wave Tm:YAG laser combined with a mechanical tissue morcellator. We analyzed patient demographic, perioperative and 12-month followup data. Complications were assessed. Results: Mean preoperative prostate volume was 108.6 cc (range 80 to 200), mean International Prostate Symptom Score was 23.5 (range 8 to 35) and mean quality of life score was 4.3 (range 1 to 6). There was an 86% reduction (range 67% to 99%) in prostate volume on transrectal ultrasound by 12 months and an 88% decrease (range 58% to 100%) in prostate specific antigen. International Index of Erectile Function score remained stable. Peak urinary flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score and quality of life improved significantly (p <0.001), as did post-void residual urine. The overall complication rate was manageable. Two patients required blood transfusion and 10 experienced early postoperative stress incontinence. During followup 7% of patients had symptomatic urinary tract infection and 2 had persistent grade I stress urinary incontinence. The reoperation rate due to urethral stricture was 1.8% during the 12-month followup. Conclusions: Tm:YAG vapoenucleation is a safe, effective and size independent treatment option for benign prostatic obstruction. As shown by reductions in transrectal ultrasound prostate volume and prostate specific antigen, complete removal of the adenoma can be achieved by this procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The acronym EEP, coding for transurethral Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate, was introduced in 2016 by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines panel on management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Since then, a laser-based treatment, Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP), and the current-based treatment of bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP) are equally appreciated as valuable options for the management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This was mainly inspired by the results of two meta-analyses on randomized controlled trials, comparing open prostatectomy with either Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) or bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP). Prior to that, HoLEP was embraced as the only valid option for transurethral enucleation, although evidence for equivalence existed as early as 2006, but was not recognized due to a plethora of acronyms for bipolar energy-based treatments and practiced HoLEP-centrism. On the other hand, the academic discourse focused on different (other) laser approaches that came up, led by Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) Vapoenucleation (ThuVEP) in 2009 and, finally, transurethral anatomical enucleation with Tm:YAG support (thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuLEP) in 2010. Initially, the discourse on lasers focused on the different properties of lasers rather than technique or surgical anatomy, respectively. In and after 2016, the discussion ultimately moved towards surgical technique and accepting anatomical preparation as the common of all EEP techniques (AEEP). Since then, the unspoken question has been raised, whether lasers are still necessary to perform EEP in light of existing evidence, given the total cost of ownership (TCO) for these generators. This article weighs the current evidence and comes to the conclusion that no evidence of superiority of one modality over another exists with regard to any endpoint. Therefore, in the sense of critical importance, AEEP can be safely and effectively performed without laser technologies and without compromise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate outcomes after laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) stratified by whether early apical release (EAR) was performed or not. We retrospectively reviewed patients with clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent EEP with holmium or thulium fiber laser in 8 centers (January 2020-January 2022). Exclusion criteria: previous prostate/urethral surgery, prostate cancer, pelvic radiotherapy, concomitant lower urinary tract surgery. One-to-one propensity score-matching was performed between patients with EAR vs no EAR, with covariates including age, prostate volume, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, preoperative indwelling catheter, IPSS, Qmax, enucleation, and laser types. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate independent predictors of 30-day postoperative complications and urinary incontinence. EAR was performed in 2094 of 4392 included patients. The matched cohort consisted of 787 patients per arm. Total operation time was significantly longer in the EAR group (median 75 vs 67 minutes, P =.004). Early complications were higher in the EAR group (18.6% vs 12.5%, P =.001), while postoperative incontinence rates were similar (14.1% vs 13.1%, P =.61). Multivariable regression analysis showed that 3-lobe enucleation and operation time were significant predictors of postoperative complications; preoperative indwelling catheterization, higher prostate volume, and en-bloc enucleation were associated with higher odds of postoperative incontinence. Limitation: retrospective nature. Performing EAR during EEP is associated with a greater incidence of early complications, which was mainly driven by higher rates of postoperative hematuria and perioperative transfusion. The risk of postoperative incontinence and its duration are not affected by EAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Context Practice patterns for the management of urinary retention (UR) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO; UR/BPO) vary widely and remain unstandardized. Objective To review the evidence for managing patients with UR/BPO with pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments included in the European Association of Urology guidelines on non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms. Evidence acquisition Search was conducted up to April 22, 2018, using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies. Methods as detailed in the Cochrane handbook were followed. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Evidence synthesis Literature search identified 2074 citations. Twenty-one studies were included (qualitative synthesis). The evidence for managing patients with UR/BPO with pharmacological or nonpharmacological treatments is limited. CoE for most outcomes was low/very low. Only α1-blockers (alfuzosin and tamsulosin) have been evaluated in more than one RCT. Pooled results indicated that α1-blockers provided significantly higher rates of successful trial without catheter compared with placebo [alfuzosin: 322/540 (60%) vs 156/400 (39%) (odds ratio {OR} 2.28, 95% confidence interval {CI} 1.55 to 3.36; participants = 940; studies = 7; I 2 = 41%; low CoE); tamsulosin: 75/158 (47%) vs 40/139 (29%) (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.45; participants = 297; studies = 3; I 2 = 30%; low CoE)] with rare adverse events. Similar rates were achieved with tamsulosin or alfuzosin [51/87 (59%) vs 45/84 (54%) (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.41; participants = 171; studies = 2; I 2 = 0%; very low CoE)]. Nonpharmacological treatments have been evaluated in RCTs/prospective comparative studies only sporadically. Conclusions There is some evidence that usage of α1-blockers (alfuzosin and tamsulosin) may improve resolution of UR/BPO. As most nonpharmacological treatments have not been evaluated in patients with UR/BPO, the evidence is inconclusive about their benefits and harms. Patient summary There is some evidence that alfuzosin and tamsulosin may increase the rates of successful trial without catheter, but little or no evidence on various nonpharmacological treatment options for managing patients with urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. Take Home Message Alfuzosin and tamsulosin appear to provide higher rates of successful trial without catheter. Most nonpharmacological treatment options have not been evaluated in patients with urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. Consequently, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions for the management of urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]