Efficacy of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in men with impaired bladder contractility: A review

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110624
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Abuelnaga ◽  
Ala’a Sharaf ◽  
James Armitage
Keyword(s):  
Holmium Laser ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Transurethral Resection Of Prostate ◽  
Detrusor Muscle ◽  
Detrusor Underactivity ◽  
Partial Recovery ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Laser Enucleation ◽  
Holmium Laser Enucleation

Introduction: Since Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) was introduced in the 1990s as an endoscopic deobstructing modality for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), several reports have concluded that HoLEP has compared favourably to transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) in relieving Bladder Outlet Obstruction (BOO). However, there has been no consensus regarding the efficacy of surgical management of men with Detrusor Underactivity (DU) and BOO. Methods: We performed a literature search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. All studies that provided data on the effectiveness of HoLEP in men with BOO and DU were assessed. Data collected included the number of patients, median follow-up, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Qmax, post-void residual (PVR) and catheter dependency pre- and post-intervention. Results: Nine studies were identified in the literature with a follow-up range between 6 and 60 months. Only one prospective study was identified where investigators performed urodynamic studies (UDSs) before and after the intervention. In addition to a significant improvement of voiding parameters, they reported partial recovery of detrusor muscle contractility in approximately 80% of patients. Furthermore, all other studies reported an improvement in all outcome parameters and proved the efficacy of HoLEP in patients with DU and BOO. Conclusion: The current literature underpins the efficacy of HoLEP in patients with impaired bladder contractility. However, current research is limited and the majority of the published data are retrospective in nature. Therefore, more well-conducted prospective randomised studies are needed to reinforce high-level evidence for this hypothesis. Level of evidence: Not applicable.

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

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.

scholarly journals Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with Virtual Basket mode: faster and better control on bleeding

BMC Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Bozzini ◽  
Matteo Maltagliati ◽  
Umberto Besana ◽  
Lorenzo Berti ◽  
Albert Calori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Urine Volume ◽  
Holmium Laser ◽  
Laser Enucleation ◽  
Holmium Laser Enucleation ◽  
Irrigation Volume

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document