1528: Holmium Laser Enucleation of The Prostate vs Plasmakinetic (Gyrus) Enucleation of The Prostate: A Randomised Trial With One Year Follow-Up

Abstract Background To compare clinical intra and early postoperative outcomes between conventional Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using the Virtual Basket tool (VB-HoLEP) to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods This prospective randomized study enrolled consecutive patients with BPH, who were assigned to undergo either HoLEP (n = 100), or VB-HoLEP (n = 100). All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively, with particular attention to catheterization time, operative time, blood loss, irrigation volume and hospital stay. We also evaluated the patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery and assessed maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Quality of Life score (QOLS). Results No significant differences in preoperative parameters between patients in each study arm were found. Compared to HoLEP, VB-HoLEP resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (2.54 vs. 1.12 g/dl, P = 0.03) and reduced operative time (57.33 ± 29.71 vs. 42.99 ± 18.51 min, P = 0.04). HoLEP and VB-HoLEP detrmined similar catheterization time (2.2 vs. 1.9 days, P = 0.45), irrigation volume (33.3 vs. 31.7 l, P = 0.69), and hospital stay (2.8 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.21). During the 6-month follow-up no significant differences in IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and QOLS were demonstrated. Conclusions HoLEP and VB-HoLEP are both efficient and safe procedures for relieving lower urinary tract symptoms. VB-HoLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in blood loss and operative time. However, procedures did not differ significantly in catheterization time, hospital stay, and irrigation volume. No significant differences were demonstrated in QOLS, IPSS, Qmax and PVR throughout the 6-month follow-up. Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72879639; date of registration: June 25th, 2015. Retrospectively registred.

Download Full-text

PD27-05 COMPLICATIONS OF HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE: A SINGLE CENTRE CASE SERIES WITH 13 YEARS OF FOLLOW-UP

The Journal of Urology ◽

10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.1226 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 197 (4S) ◽

Author(s):

Danielle Whiting ◽

Thomas Smith ◽

Branimir Penev ◽

Mark Cynk

Keyword(s):

Case Series ◽

Holmium Laser ◽

Single Centre ◽

Laser Enucleation ◽

Holmium Laser Enucleation

Download Full-text

Holmium laser prostatectomy in a tertiary Italian center: A prospective cost analysis in comparison with bipolar TURP and open prostatectomy

Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia ◽

10.4081/aiua.2020.2.82 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 92 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Riccardo Schiavina ◽

Lorenzo Bianchi ◽

Marco Giampaoli ◽

Marco Borghesi ◽

Hussam Dababneh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Analysis ◽

Prostate Volume ◽

Indirect Costs ◽

Holmium Laser ◽

Transurethral Resection Of Prostate ◽

Open Prostatectomy ◽

Global Cost ◽

Laser Enucleation ◽

Holmium Laser Enucleation

Objective: To assess the economic impact of Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in comparison with transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP). Methods: Between January 2017 and January 2018, we prospectively enrolled 151 men who underwent HoLEP, TURP or OP at tertiary Italian center, due to bladder outflow obstruction symptoms. Patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and those with prostate volume > 70 cc were scheduled for TURP or HoLEP and OP or HoLEP, respectively. Intraoperative and early post-operative functional outcomes were recorded up to 6 months follow up. Cost analysis was carried out considering direct costs (operating room [OR] utilization costs, nurse, surgeons and anesthesiologists’ costs, OR disposable products costs and OR products sterilization costs), indirect costs (hospital stay costs and diagnostics costs) and global costs as sum of both direct and indirect plus general costs related to hospitalization. Cost analysis was performed comparing patients referred to TURP and HoLEP with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and men underwent OP and HoLEP with prostate volume > 70 cc respectively. Results: Overall, 53 (35.1%), 51 (33.7%) and 47 (31.1%) were scheduled to HoLEP, TURP and OP, respectively. Both TURP, HoLEP and OP proved to effectively improve urinary symptoms related to BPE. Considering patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was similar to median global cost of TURP (2151.69 € vs. 2185.61 €, respectively; p = 0.61). Considering patients with prostate volume > 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was found to be significantly lower than median global cost of OP (2174.15 € vs. 4064.97 €, respectively; p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: Global costs of HoLEP are comparable to those of TURP, offering a cost saving of only 11.4 € in favor of HoLEP. Conversely, HoLEP proved to be a strong competitor of OP because of significant global cost sparing amounting to 1890.82 € in favor of HoLEP.

Download Full-text