The Predictive Factor for Favorable Outcome after Surgical Treatment of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Performed by Young Urologist: Is Surgical Modality Important in Beginner Urologists?

Objective: To identify predictive factors for favorable outcomes after surgical treatments that were performed by beginner urologists in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), we retrospectively evaluated outcomes after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) that were performed by two young urologists.Methods: Of 80 patients who were treated with HoLEP or TURP, 31 (HoLEP) and 36 (TURP) patients who were followed up for 3 months were enrolled in this study. Preoperative and perioperative variables were evaluated to identify predictive factors for favorable outcome after surgical treatment for BPH.Results: At 3 months postoperative after HoLEP or TURP, the median decrease in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 13.0. Patients whose IPSS decreased by over 13 points were categorized into a favorable response group after HoLEP or TURP. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of favorable outcomes at 3 months after HoLEP or TURP, and the preoperative IPSS was identified as an independent predictor for favorable outcomes.Conclusion: When young urologists plan to perform surgical treatment for BPH, they should consider that the severity of symptoms is the most important factor for favorable outcomes. The type of surgical modality for managing BPH is less important.

An Updated Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization vs. Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Background: Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has been introduced into clinical practice, but conclusive evidence of efficacy and safety has been lacking.Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) vs. transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), we performed a meta-analysis of clinical trials.Methods: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from Pubmed, Embase, Wanfang, and CNKI from January 2000 to December 2020 and used RevMan 5.0 to analyze the data after five RCTs were included.Results: The reducing of prostate volume (PV) [Median mean (MD) 14.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.52–22.22; P < 0.0001] and the increasing of maximum flow rate in free uroflowmetry (Qmax) (MD 3.73; 95% CI 0.19–7.27; P = 0.004) were more obvious in TURP than in PAE; however, the rate of lower sexual dysfunction [odds ratio (OR) 0.12; 95% CI 0.05–0.30; P < 0.00001] was lower in PAE compared with TURP. Meanwhile, no conspicuous difference in International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) score (MD 1.42; 95% CI −0.92 to 3.75; P = 0.23), quality of life (Qol) score (MD 0.21; 95% CI −0.31 to 0.73; P = 0.43), post void residual (PVR) (MD 21.16; 95% CI −5.58 to 47.89; P = 0.12), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (MD 0.56; 95% CI −0.15 to 1.27; P = 0.12), and complications (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.20–4.05; P = 0.89) between PAE and TURP group was shown.Conclusion: PAE may replace TURP as an alternative treatment for Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients who do not want to have surgery or with operational contraindications.

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

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.

Modified bladder outlet obstruction index for powerful efficacy prediction of transurethral resection of prostate with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Background The correlation between modified bladder outlet obstruction index (MBOOI) and surgical efficacy still remains unknown. The purpose of the study was to investigate the clinical value of the MBOOI and its use in predicting surgical efficacy in men receiving transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Methods A total of 403 patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) were included in this study. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) index, transrectal ultrasonography, and pressure flow study were conducted for all patients. The bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOI) (PdetQmax–2Qmax) and MBOOI (Pves–2Qmax) were calculated. All patients underwent TURP, and surgical efficacy was accessed by the improvements in IPSS, QoL, and Qmax 6 months after surgery. The association between surgical efficacy and baseline factors was statistically analyzed. Results A comparison of effective and ineffective groups based on the overall efficacy showed that significant differences were observed in PSA, Pves, PdetQmax, Pabd, BOOI, MBOOI, TZV, TZI, IPSS-t, IPSS-v, IPSS-s, Qmax, and PVR at baseline (p < 0.05). Binary logistic regression analysis suggested that MBOOI was the only baseline parameter correlated with the improvements in IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and the overall efficacy. Additionally, the ROC analysis further verified that MBOOI was more optimal than BOOI, TZV and TZI in predicting the surgical efficacy. Conclusion Although both MBOOI and BOOI can predict the clinical symptoms and surgical efficacy of BPH patients to a certain extent, however, compared to BOOI, MBOOI may be a more useful factor that can be used to predict the surgical efficacy of TURP. Trial registration retrospectively registered.

Comparative Analysis between Monopolar and Bipolar TURP - A Single Institute Prospective Controlled Study

Background: The ‘gold standard’ surgical treatment of clinically obstructive BPH is TURP, but life-threatening complications such as transurethral resection syndrome are occasionally observed. This has traditionally been provided as monopolar TURP, but morbidity associated with MTURP has led to the introduction of other surgical techniques. Objectives: To compare the effects of bipolar and monopolar TURP. Methods: In this prospective comparative study, 50 patients of each group undergo transurethral resection of prostate were enrolled and randomized to surgery by M‑TURP or B-TURP. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), uroflowmetry, ultrasonography, prevoid, postvoid and international prostate symptom score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine (PVRU) volume, and prostate volume (PV). Complications and sequelae also assessed. Comparisons performed. Results:No significant differences found in baseline characteristics or operative data, No differences found in IPSS, Qmax or PVRU volume. Conclusions:Based on this controlled trial, there is not significant variation in effectiveness and safety between M-TURP and Bipolar -TURP for the treatment of BPH. Accordingly, M-TURP continues to be a valid option for the treatment of BPE. Keywords: Transurethral resection of prostate, Monopolar, Bipolar.