Long-term Reinterventions after Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: 12-Year Experience with more than 1000 Patients

Author(s):  
Britta Grüne ◽  
Fabian Siegel ◽  
Frank Waldbillig ◽  
Daniel Pfalzgraf ◽  
Gaetan Kamdje Wabo ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110337
Author(s):  
Danielle Whiting ◽  
Branimir Penev ◽  
Katherine Guest ◽  
Mark Cynk

Objective: To describe the short and long-term complications of over 1000 cases of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in a single centre. Methods: A prospective database of all HoLEP procedures performed between December 2003 and March 2017 was analysed. Results: A total of 1016 HoLEP procedures were performed. Median patient age was 72 years (range 41–95). There was a significant improvement in urinary flow, post-void residual volume, IPSS and QoL score ( p < 0.0001). Pre-operative acute urinary retention was present in 403 patients (39.7%). Post-operatively five patients (1.2%) continued with a long-term catheter. Early and late complications consisted of failed initial voiding trial (10.6%), stress incontinence (transient 6.5%; persistent 0.3%), frequency/dysuria (5.6%), urinary tract infection (5.3%), urethral stricture (4.8%), submeatal stenosis (1.9%), return to theatre (1.5%), bladder neck stenosis (1.3%), bleeding (1.2%), epididymitis (0.7%), confusion (0.3%), transurethral resection of the prostate conversion (0.2%), ureteric obstruction (0.2%), vomiting (0.2%), anuric renal failure (0.1%), chest infection (0.1%), chest pain (0.1%), myocardial infarction (0.1%), rectoprostatic fistula (0.1%), supraventricular tachycardia (0.1%) and urinary sepsis (0.1%). Five-year reoperation rate was 3.7%. Conclusion: HoLEP is a safe treatment for bladder outflow obstruction secondary to an enlarged prostate. It is associated with few early and late complications and has a low reoperation rate. Level of evidence: 4


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 223-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Maria Pirola ◽  
Giovanni Saredi ◽  
Ricardo Codas Duarte ◽  
Lorraine Bernard ◽  
Andrea Pacchetti ◽  
...  

Background: The aim of our study was to compare perioperative and functional outcomes of two different prostatic laser enucleation techniques performed in two high-volume centers: 100 W holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) (Lyon, France) and 110 W thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) (Varese, Italy). Materials and Methods: A nonrandomized, observational, retrospective and matched-pair analysis was performed on two homogeneous groups of 117 patients that underwent prostate laser enucleation in the HoLEP or ThuLEP centers between January 2015 and April 2017, following the classical ‘three lobes’ enucleation technique. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and prostate volume were the main parameters considered for matching the patients between the two groups. Patients on anticoagulant therapy, with documented detrusor hypoactivity or hyperactivity or with the finding of concurrent prostate cancer were excluded from the study. Follow up was assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Results: Median enucleation and morcellation time was 75.5 and 11.5 min, respectively, in the HoLEP group versus 70.5 and 12 min, respectively, in the ThuLEP group ( p = 0.001 and 0.49, respectively). Enucleated adenoma weight was comparable (44 g versus 45.6 g, p = 0.60). Energy index (3884.63 versus 4137.35 J/g, p = 0.30) and enucleation index (0.57 versus 0.6 g/min, p = 0.81) were similar in the two groups. Catheterization time was comparable (1 versus 1 day; p = 0.14). The International Prostate Symptom Score and Quality of Life score significantly decreased, as well as maximal urinary flow rate. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) drop 1 year after surgery was 2.1 ng/ml in the HoLEP group (−52.83%) versus 1.75 ng/ml in the ThuLEP group (−47.85%) ( p = 0.013). Conclusion: Both HoLEP (100 W) and ThuLEP (110 W) relieve lower urinary tract symptoms in a comparable way with high efficacy and safety, with negligible clinical differences.


Urology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Pacchetti ◽  
Giacomo Maria Pirola ◽  
Lorenzo Berti ◽  
Mara Palumbo ◽  
Giuseppe Ietto ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 419-426
Author(s):  
Mudassir M. Wani ◽  
◽  
Seshadri Sriprasad ◽  
Tahir Bhat ◽  
Sanjeev Madaan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document