Search

Objective: To evaluate outcomes after laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) stratified by whether early apical release (EAR) was performed or not., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Fernando Gómez Sancha is a paid consultant for Quanta system and Lumenis. Dean Elterman is a paid consultant/investigator for Boston Scientific, Procept Biorobotics, Olympus, Urotronic, Prodeon, and Zenflow. Thomas R.W. Herrmann is a paid consultant for, has received honoraria from, and is involved in research collaboration with Karl Storz. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We aim to evaluate the incidence of incontinence following laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) comparing en-bloc (Group 1) versus 2-lobe/3-lobe techniques (Group 2). We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing EEP for benign prostatic enlargement in 12 centers between January 2020 and January 2022. Data were presented as median and interquartile range (IQR). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). There were 1711 patients in Group 1 and 3357 patients in Group 2. Patients in Group 2 were significantly younger (68 [62-73] years vs 69 [63-74] years, P = 0.002). Median (interquartile range) prostate volume (PV) was similar between the groups (70 [52-92] ml in Group 1 vs 70 [54-90] ml in Group 2, P = 0.774). There was no difference in preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life, or maximum flow rate. Enucleation, morcellation, and total surgical time were significantly shorter in Group 1. Within 1 month, overall incontinence rate was 6.3% in Group 1 versus 5.3% in Group 2 ( P = 0.12), and urge incontinence was significantly higher in Group 1 (55.1% vs 37.3% in Group 2, P < 0.001). After 3 months, the overall rate of incontinence was 1.7% in Group 1 versus 2.3% in Group 2 ( P = 0.06), and SUI was significantly higher in Group 2 (55.6% vs 24.1% in Group 1, P = 0.002). At multivariable analysis, PV and IPSS were factors significantly associated with higher odds of transient SUI/MUI. PV, surgical time, and no early apical release technique were factors associated with higher odds of persistent SUI/MUI., (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © The Author(s)(2024).)

Purpose: To evaluate complications and urinary incontinence (UI) after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) stratified by prostate volume (PV)., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent EEP with different energy sources in 14 centers (January 2019-January 2023)., Inclusion Criteria: prostate volume ≥ 80 ml., Exclusion Criteria: prostate cancer, previous prostate/urethral surgery, pelvic radiotherapy., Primary Outcome: complication rate., Secondary Outcomes: incidence of and factors affecting postoperative UI. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1: PV = 80-100 ml; Group 2 PV = 101-200 ml; Group 3 PV > 200 ml. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate independent predictors of overall incontinence., Results: There were 486 patients in Group 1, 1830 in Group 2, and 196 in Group 3. The most commonly used energy was high-power Holmium laser followed by Thulium fiber laser in all groups. Enucleation, morcellation, and total surgical time were significantly longer in Group 2. There was no significant difference in overall 30-day complications and readmission rates. Incontinence incidence was similar (12.1% in Group 1 vs. 13.2% in Group 2 vs. 11.7% in Group 3, p = 0.72). The rate of stress and mixed incontinence was higher in Group 1. Multivariable regression analysis showed that age (OR 1.019 95% CI 1.003-1.035) was the only factor significantly associated with higher odds of incontinence., Conclusions: PV has no influence on complication and UI rates following EEP. Age is risk factor of postoperative UI., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Different lasers have been developed for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, with no definitively superior technique identified to date., Objective: To compare surgical and functional enucleation outcomes in real-world multicentre practice using high-power holmium laser (HP-HoLEP) and thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) for different prostate sizes., Design, Setting, and Participants: The study included 4216 patients who underwent HP-HoLEP or ThuFLEP at eight centers in seven countries between 2020 and 2022. Exclusion criteria were previous urethral or prostatic surgery, radiotherapy, or concomitant surgery., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: To adjust for the bias arising from different characteristics at baseline, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to identify 563 matched patients in each cohort. Outcomes included the incidence of postoperative incontinence, early complications (30-d), and delayed complications, and results for the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual volume (PVR)., Results and Limitations: After PSM, 563 patients in each arm were included. Total operative time was similar between the arms, but enucleation and morcellation times were significantly longer for ThuFLEP. The rate of postoperative acute urinary retention was higher in the ThuFLEP arm (3.6% vs 0.9%; p = 0.005), but the 30-d readmission rate was higher in the HP-HoLEP arm (22% vs 8%; p = 0.016). There was no difference in postoperative incontinence rates (HP-HoLEP:19.7%, ThuFLEP:16.0%; p = 0.120). Rates of other early and delayed complications were low and comparable between the arms. The ThuFLEP group had higher Qmax (p < 0.001) and lower PVR (p < 0.001) than the HP-HoLEP group at 1-yr follow-up. The study is limited by its retrospective nature., Conclusions: This real-world study shows that early and delayed outcomes of enucleation with ThuFLEP are comparable to those with HP-HoLEP, with similar improvements in micturition parameters and IPSS., Patient Summary: As lasers become readily available for the treatment of enlarged prostates causing urinary bother, urologists should focus on performing good anatomic removal of prostate tissue, with the choice of laser not as important for good outcomes. Patients should be counseled about long-term complications, even when the procedure is being performed by an experienced surgeon., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: We aimed to describe the technique and outcomes of En-Bloc MOSES laser enucleation of the prostate (En-Bloc MoLEP) with early apical release comparing it to En-Bloc HoLEP (non-MOSES)., Patients and Methods: This is a single-arm prospective study, using a historical control. n = 80 patients were enrolled to the En Bloc MoLEP group and compared to a retrospective group of n = 137 patients treated by En Bloc HoLEP (non-MOSES), in total n = 217 patients., Results: En-Bloc MoLEP, showed to significantly improve the surgical time by 32% compared to non-MOSES HoLEP (32.16 ± 14.46 min, 47.58 ± 21.32, respectively; P = 0.003). Enucleation time, ablation rate and hemostasis time were also significantly improved (P < 0.001, for all three parameters). Enucleation time was 22.10 ± 9.27 min and 31.46 ± 14.85 min (P < 0.001), ablation rate 4.11 ± 2.41 and 2.54 ± 1.31 gr/min (P < 0.001), Hemostasis time 3.01 ± 2.50 and 8.35 ± 5.38 min (P < 0.001), for En Bloc MoLEP and En Bloc HoLEP, respectively. Q-max, PVR, PSA and IPSS showed significant improvement, however, at 12 months no significant differences were observed comparing both groups., Conclusions: En-Bloc MoLEP was significantly better than En-Bloc HoLEP in terms of surgical time, enucleation time, ablation rate and hemostasis time. However, large comparative RCT with long-term follow-up are needed., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose of Review: We aim to offer a description of the surgical technique and to review the current state retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (rRAPN)., Recent Findings: Partial nephrectomy is the standard treatment for localized kidney tumours. rRAPN is especially useful for kidney tumours of posterior location. It offers advantages such as direct access to the renal artery and no need for bowel mobilization. The disadvantages are the small working space and the less familiar anatomical landmarks. It is a reproducible technique that achieves similar oncological and functional results to the more traditional transperitoneal route (tRAPN). High-quality randomized studies are needed to ascertain the role of new technologies as modern high-flow insufflation systems, intracavitary ultrasound, 3D planning, and augmented reality (AR), in the performance of this operation. rRAPN is especially useful for kidney tumours of posterior location. Robotic surgeons ideally should become familiar with both approaches, transperitoneal or retroperitoneal.

Introduction: Social Media (SoMe) includes a broad spectrum of public use platforms like Twitter, YouTube or Facebook that have changed the way humans interact and communicate. Considering the high usage rates for various SoMe platforms among urologists, we aimed to perform a review regarding opportunities, applications, appropriate use and new horizons of SoMe in urology., Material and Methods: Literature review., Results: We are currently experiencing an explosion in the use of SoMe in healthcare and urology due to the clear offer of advantages in communication, information sharing, enhanced experience of meetings and conferences, as well as, for networking. However, SoMe is an open environment and recommendations should be implemented on the appropriate use in order to respect ethical considerations and not break the harmony of the doctor-patient relationship. SoMe activity has become an important part of our participation in scientific meetings., Conclusions: SoMe represents a vibrant area of opportunities for the communication of knowledge in health care and so their potential applications today are unquestionable; however, its development in the urological community is still in its infancy. At present the benefits include communication between associations, urologists, residents, other health care professionals and patients. Further efforts are focusing on standardizing the language used through SoMe and finding out how we can objectively quantify the impact of the information published in SoMe., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.