scholarly journals Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate With Virtual Basket Mode: Faster and Better Control on Bleeding

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Bozzini ◽  
Matteo Maltagliati ◽  
Umberto Besana ◽  
Lorenzo Berti ◽  
Alberto Calori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Holmium Laser ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
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 with Virtual Basket tool (VB-HoLEP) to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).METHODS: This prospective randomized study enrolled consecutive patients with BPH to HoLEP (n = 100) or VB-HoLEP (n =100). We evaluated all patients preoperatively with particular attention to catheterization time, operative time, blood loss, irrigation volume and hospital stay. We evaluated also the patients at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery with the use of maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS).RESULTS: We didn’t see significant difference in preoperative parameters between patients in each study arm. Compared with HoLEP, VB-HoLEP resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (2.54 vs 1.12 g/dL, P = .003) and had a more rapid operative time (57.33±29.71 vs 42.99±18.51 minutes, P = 0.04). HoLEP and VB-HoLEP had same 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 follow-up of subsequent 12 months, we didn’t demonstrate a significant difference in IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and QOLS.CONCLUSION: HoLEP and VB-HoLEP both are efficient a safe procedure for relieving lower urinary tract symptoms. VB-HoLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in blood loss and to allow a faster procedure. However, procedures did not differ significantly in catheterization time, hospital stay, operation time and irrigation volume. No differences were demonstrated in QOLF, IPSS, Qmax and PVR through the post-surgery 12 months of follow-up.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72879639; date of registration: June 25th, 2015. Retrospectively registred.

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.

scholarly journals Two-year follow-up after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized study

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamdouh M. El-Hawy ◽  
Amr Eldakhakhny ◽  
Ahmed AbdEllatif ◽  
Emad A. Salem ◽  
Ahmed Ragab ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transurethral Resection ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
Holmium Laser ◽  
Prospective Randomized Study ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Laser Enucleation ◽  
Holmium Laser Enucleation

Abstract Background Different treatment options are available for the management of BPH. Our study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of a holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and a bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (Bipolar-TURP) after 2 years. Methods Our prospective randomized study included 114 patients: 55 patients underwent HoLEP procedure and 59 patients underwent bipolar TURP procedure. All patients underwent a complete preoperative assessment and a physical examination. The postoperative follow-up data included Q max and IPSS recordings at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and PVR urinary volume recordings at 6 and 12 months. Any postoperative complications were also recorded. Results There were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding IPSS and Q max scores at one and 24 months postoperative. Also, there were no statistically significant differences between both groups regarding postoperative PVR at 6 and 12 months. One patient in the HoLEP group developed total incontinence after surgery. Conclusion Our study did not show a significant difference between HoLEP and bipolar TURP regarding postoperative Q max and IPSS scores at 24 months of follow-up.

scholarly journals Is Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate a Good Surgical Alternative in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Management? A Review Article

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amirreza Abedi ◽  
Mohammad Reza Razzaghi ◽  
Amirhossein Rahavian ◽  
Ebrahim Hazrati ◽  
Fereshte Aliakbari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Outlet Obstruction ◽  
Prostatic Hyperplasia ◽  
Holmium Laser ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Open Prostatectomy ◽  
Laser Enucleation ◽  
Holmium Laser Enucleation

Several therapeutic approaches such as holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) have been introduced to relieve bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Compared with other techniques including the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and simple open prostatectomy, HoLEP results in a shorter hospital stay and catheterization time and fewer blood loss and transfusions. HoLEP is a size-independent treatment option for BPH with average gland size from 36 g to 170 g. HoLEP is a safe procedure in patients receiving an anticoagulant and has no significant influence on the hemoglobin level. Also, HoLEP is an easy and safe technique in patients with a prior history of prostate surgery and a need for retreatment because of adenoma regrowth. The postoperative erectile dysfunction rate of patients treated with HoLEP is similar to TURP or open prostatectomy and about 77% of these patients experience loss of ejaculation. Patients with transitional zone volume less than 30 mL may suffer from persistent stress urinary incontinence following HoLEP so other surgical techniques like bipolar TURP are a good choice for these patients. In young patients, considering HoLEP with high prostate-specific antigen density and a negative standard template prostate biopsy, multiparametric MRI needs to be considered to exclude prostate cancer.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document