Tag Archive for: prostatic hyperplasia

Posts

Article of the week: Critical analysis of a multicentric experience with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for BPH

Every week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

There is also an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. Please use the comment buttons if you would like to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, we recommend this one. 

Critical analysis of a multicentric experience with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: outcomes and complications of 10 years of routine clinical practice

Javier Romero-Otero*†‡, Borja García-Gómez*, Lucía García-González*, Esther García-Rojo*, Pablo Abad-López*, Juan Justo-Quintas, José Duarte-Ojeda* and Alfredo Rodríguez-Antolín*

*Urology Department, Grupo de Investigación Salud Integral del Varón imas12, Hospital Universitario 12 Octubre, Hospital Universitario HM Montepríncipe, and Hospital Universitario La Luz, Madrid, Spain

Abstract

Objective

To assess the perioperative outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in real‐life practice and investigate the factors influencing the safety and effectiveness of the technique.

Patients and Methods

Critical analysis of patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) treated with HoLEP over 10 years of routine practice in three hospitals. Analysed variables included: preoperative characteristics (prostate size, active antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy, blood parameters. prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level, maximum urinary flow rate [Qmax], and International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]), intraoperative variables (operation time, concomitant removal of bladder calculi, and complications), early postoperative outcomes (change in blood parameters, catheterisation time, and hospital stay), and 12‐month follow‐up outcomes (change in IPSS, PSA level, and Qmax).

Results

The analysis included 963 patients, aged 48–91 years, with a mean (range) prostate size of 91 (35–247) mL. The mean (sd ) operation time was 77 (29) min, and the hospital stay and catheterisation time were 4 (2) and 1.3 (2) days, respectively. In all, 56 patients (5.6%) required concomitant removal of bladder calculi and 36 (3.7%) were converted to open prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate due to intraoperative complications. Patients had a significant decrease in haemoglobin and haematocrit, but no differences were seen between patients with and without anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy and those with prostates ≥ and <100 mL. The concomitant removal of bladder calculi and having a prostate ≥100 mL resulted in a longer operation time, but did not influence the safety and effectiveness outcomes.

Conclusions

HoLEP is suitable for real‐life patients with BPH, irrespective of the presence of active treatment with anticoagulant/antiplatelet, bladder lithiasis or a prostate ≥100 mL.

Editorial: HoLEP is the complete technique for treating BPH

Ten years of experience with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) are documented by Romero‐Otero et al. [1] and offer valuable insight into the real‐world use of this technique. No information on the 10‐year durability is available, however, as only the 12‐month data are presented, but there is a wealth of other information concerning both peri‐operative outcomes and complications. A particular strength of this paper is that all‐comers were studied, including patients with catheters, those with prostates larger than 100 g and those taking anti‐coagulants, plus there is the addition of the cases the three surgeons performed during their ‘learning curve’, although these are not analysed separately.

The authors’ technique almost certainly evolved over the study period. Personally, I currently find a one‐ or two‐piece enucleation to be more efficient than the three‐lobe technique originally described [2]. Enucleation efficiency of 1–2 g/min, as was achieved in this series (73 g in 40 min), is a good benchmark for tissue removal for those new to the technique and is a good measure of surgical proficiency. Being less aggressive anteriorly seems to have an impact on continence. It is often tempting to completely enucleate circumferentially in one continuous plane which is sometimes well beyond the commissure anteriorly. A more moderate dissection in this area can reduce the transient incontinence sometimes seen [3]. The incontinence rates in the current series of 12.8% at 3 months and 2.3% at 12 months are probably representative [1]. An analysis of the factors predisposing to moderate‐to‐severe incontinence in the six patients in this series would have been useful, particularly regarding prostate size, presence of a catheter and age.

The main contribution of HoLEP to the urological armamentarium is its ability to safely treat large prostates endoscopically [4]. Although robot‐assisted techniques have also decreased the morbidity of open prostatectomy [5], the attraction of the obvious ‘natural orifice’ for access and the use of laser technology for the enucleation with HoLEP is probably the least morbid and most cost‐effective way to treat these patients. Tackling a prostate larger than 100 g involves applying the same principles as for smaller prostates, with a few provisos. Firstly, having a consistent strategy for these large prostates is important and can be reassuring when things become difficult. Secondly, it is even more important to maintain the correct plane religiously as it is easier to get lost in these glands. A good sense of direction is important! Thirdly, stay ahead of the bleeding rather than trying to catch up as it can further compound an already difficult situation. Patience is a virtue.

The learning curve of HoLEP has historically been regarded as a major barrier to the uptake of the technique [6]. This has, of course, been exaggerated by proponents of other techniques, but it is important to emphasize that during this learning phase the excellent outcomes are maintained and that conversion to TURP, if necessary (3.4% in this series), can be safely done, as these authors’ have demonstrated. The length of the learning curve has been variously described as being between 20 and 80 cases and is almost entirely due to the way training is done. A modular mentored approach appears to be the best method and could equally be applied to endoscopic enucleation using any of the other energy sources that have been described [7].

HoLEP and all its progeny are here to stay, but which of these enucleation energy sources will gain ascendancy remains to be seen. Sadly, this will likely be more to do with the depth of the corporate pockets and their commitment to the cause rather than proper scientific appraisal [8].

by Peter Gilling

References

  1. Romero‐Otero J, Garcia‐Gomez B, Garcia‐Gonzalez L et al. Critical analysis of a multicentric experience with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: outcomes and complications of 10 years of routine clinical practice. BJU Int 2020; 126: 177-182
  2. Gilling PJ, Kennett K, Das AK, Thompson D, Fraundorfer MR. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) combined with transurethral tissue morcellation: an update on the early clinical experience. J Endourol 1998; 12: 457– 9
  3. Tunc L, Yalcin S, Kaya E et al. The “Omega Sign”: a novel HoLEP technique that improves continence outcomes after enucleation. World J Urol 2020 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03152-9
  4. Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, Fraundorfer MR. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for glands larger than 100 g: an endourologic alternative to open prostatectomy. J Endourol 2000; 14: 529– 31
  5. Mourmouris P, Keskin SM, Skolarikos A et al. A prospective comparative analysis of robot‐assisted vs open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 2019; 123: 313– 7
  6. Placer J, Gelabert‐Mas A, Vallmanya F et al. Holmium laser enucleation of prostate: outcome and complications of self‐taught learning curve. Urology 2009; 73: 1042– 8
  7. Kuronen‐Stewart C, Ahmed K, Aydin A et al. Holmium Laser Enucleation of the prostate: simulation based training curriculum and validation. Urology 2015; 86: 639– 46.
  8. Herrmann TR. Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation. World J Urol 2016; 34: 1353– 5

EAU 2016 Congress Day 3

Das bringt mich weiter! While the sun was shining in Munich, the 3rd day of the 31st EAU Annual Congress continued with very well attended plenary and poster sessions. And that is no wonder because the EAU Scientific Committee had created such an attractive program, including amazing plenary sessions during the morning and a plethora of informative poster sessions in the afternoon.

 

Professor Hendrik Borgmann (@HendrikBorgmann) has already covered highlights of the opening days 1 and 2 of this year’s Congress in his BJUI blog. We will give you some highlights of Day 3 and highly recommend you to take a look on EAU congress website, Day 3, which has archived a huge amount of material to allow you to catch up on sessions you may have missed. Indeed, lots of webcasts are available!

 

We focused on non-oncology plenary morning sessions and oncology poster sessions afternoon. Here are some of our highlights:

SURGERY IN THE ELDERLY – As our urological patients become older and older, surgery for octogenarians, or even nonagenarians, is increasingly common. The morning session covered various aspects on diagnosis and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and other urological conditions in the ageing patient.

Professor Cosimo De Nunzio began the morning with “Highlights” on lower urinary tract symptoms and prostatic disease presented during this year’s EAU congress. Also this year, as many as every third abstract was on either prostate cancer or prostatic hyperplasia.

EAU 3-1

Indeed, the plenary session on Day 3 also covered prostatic disease.

Professor Alexander Bachmann talked about surgery for BPO in the elderly. He pointed out that in elderly (high-risk) patients we do not need a complete anatomical tissue removal, we do not need a (very) long-term follow-up and that we do not need tissue for prostate cancer diagnosis. Instead, we need a safe and efficient operation with individual adaptation of the technique and preferably feasibility in an ambulatory setting or local anaesthesia.

EAU 3-2

Professor Bachmann further emphasized that it would be preferable if surgery for the elderly would be performed by experienced surgeons, and that age per se is not a reason to not operate. There are several new minimally invasive operations available, and especially for elderly less is often more.

HOW AND WHEN TO STOP ANTICOAGULATION – Managing perioperative thromboprophylaxis for patients who already receive anticoagulants remains a challenge. Associate professor Daniel Eberli and Professor Per Morten Sandset covered many of these aspects in their helpful presentations.

EAU 3-3

Dr. Eberli told us that bridging therapy (options for stopping or not stopping anticoagulation in the above figure) is eminence-based, as no papers exist showing benefits. He also presented data from the recent NEJM trial (BRIDGE study; see Table below), which showed that stopping anticoagulation without bridging was non-inferior to perioperative bridging for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding.

EAU 3-4

Dr. Eberli gave us all a take home message to discuss and question our local bridging guidelines as new evidence is very likely not supporting them (concluding slide below).

EAU 3-5

Professor Sandset recommended that during the perioperative period only use aspirin in high-risk patients, that is, those with recent thrombotic event or extensive coronary heart disease. He also informed us that stopping antiplatelet therapy 5 days before surgery (figure below) is often the way to go, and agreed with Dr. Eberli regarding bridging therapy statements.

EAU 3-6

Professor Sandset also gave helpful information regarding use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in urological surgery:

EAU 3-7

There were numerous poster sessions available on Day 3, as usual, many of them on prostate cancer. We have selected some of the highlight abstracts presented.

PROSTATE CANCER – On Day 3, prostate cancer presentations dominated once again in a number of poster, abstract and thematic sessions but also kidney, bladder, testicular and penile cancer sessions, which provided new interesting data.

Molecular markers, genomic profiling and individualized risk and treatment assessments were presented and discussed in poster session 58, and summarized by Stacy Loeb (@LoebStacy). Further advances in prostate cancer biomarkers in prostate cancer were presented in poster session 84. These new tools are moving from bench to bedside and urologists can hopefully incorporate these new tools to cancer care sooner rather than later.

In sessions on prostate cancer diagnostics, more advanced risk profiling tools were highlighted. For instance, STHLM3 test combines history of the patient, clinical parameters, biochemical markers and genetic markers. It was presented earlier in the congress and on Day 3 further health, economic and clinical evaluations were presented in Thematic session 12. It is one example of the tests showing promising results to potentially decrease the number of prostate biopsies needed. Other similar risk profiling tools were also presented during the congress. In addition to PSA only, evaluation of the smart use of already available clinical and biochemical parameters and the combination of genetic markers may bring individualized risk assessment of prostate cancer to the next level.

In poster session 62 on Day 3, diagnostic proceedings in prostate cancer with co-morbidity evaluation, biopsy strategies and MRI imaging were presented.  A combination of molecular markers and imaging may be the way to proceed in future. These aspects were covered nicely in Thematic session 12.

MRIs have been heavily integrated in prostate cancer diagnostics during recent years. Image guidance in prostate biopsies seem to be making a breakthrough in prostate cancer diagnostics. Targeted biopsies with cognitive or MRI-TRUS fusion imaging were shown to be the way to enhance the results and reliability of biopsies and cut down the number of biopsies. However, as biopsies are still needed in prostate cancer diagnostics, use of the pre-biopsy MRI protocols were suggested to be done only in clinical trial setting. Many aspects of MRI diagnostics of prostate cancer were elegantly summarized in Thematic session 11.

New sophisticated imaging technologies in addition to MRI were present in several sessions during the meeting. Diagnostic enhancement has been seen also in metastatic prostate cancer. PSMA-PET seems to be replacing choline-PET-TT in evaluation of relapsing and metastatic prostate cancer (e.g. Thematic session 10). More reliable diagnostics and imaging of prostate cancer are also enhancing the treatment decision and treatment choice of patients with local prostate cancer. Finding the right patients for the active surveillance protocols is also being helped with advanced diagnostics. Indeed, finding only patients who need treatment for prostate cancer should be the ultimate goal for enhanced diagnostics as discussed in poster sessions 66 and 75 on Day 3. There are also high expectations on focal therapy (e.g. poster session 66), which at the moment is still experimental but will likely be a real option for patients with low volume prostate cancer verified by imaging.

The role of quality of life evaluations and patient reported outcomes measured were heavily discussed during the congress in all treatment modalities of both local and advanced prostate cancer. Survivorship issues are an increasingly important issue when more effective treatments both in local and advanced prostate cancer are available.

In metastatic disease, the use of early chemotherapy in combination with hormonal treatment has been implemented very rapidly to clinical use after the results of the CHAARTED and STAMPEED studies. Further evaluation of early chemo in metastatic disease is still needed and the patient selection needs still clarification. Hormonal therapy still has a very marked role in metastatic prostate cancer and new advances can also be found in new strategies of using castration therapy as presented in poster session 67. Urologists should actively follow the changing landscape of the medical treatment of metastatic prostate cancer and be active in treatment planning and treatment of these patients. At the same time with poster session 62 novel drugs and new forms of isotope radiation therapy in castration resistant prostate cancer were discussed in poster session 61. These open new possibilities for potential treatments.

The clinical and scientific content of the program of the Day 3 was of a very high standard, and reflective of the breadth of contemporary research in many areas within urology. Besides this session, it was our pleasure to meet old and new urological friends worldwide. The annual EAU meeting remains a highly effective method of knowledge translation and provides the opportunity for collaboration between surgeon scientists and other researchers in the field. As always in big congresses, there are so many interesting sessions going on at the same time, that it is hard to pick up and follow everything you would like to. We hope that this report provides some memories and take home messages of the Day 3 to the readers of the BJUI and BJUI blogs.

We look forward to future BJUI and EAU happenings!

 

Kari Tikkinen

Urology resident, adjunct professor of clinical epidemiology

Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

@KariTikkinen

 

Mika Matikainen

Chief of urology, adjunct professor of urology

Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

 

 

Article of the Week: HLE and PVP for Patients with BPH and CUR

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Axel Merseburger discussing his paper. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Holmium Laser Enucleation and Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate for Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Chronic Urinary Retention

Christopher D. Jaeger, Christopher R. Mitchell, Lance A. Mynderse and Amy E. Krambeck

Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA

Read the full article

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate short-term outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and chronic urinary retention (CUR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients with CUR who underwent HoLEP or PVP at our institution over a 3-year period. CUR was defined as a persistent post-void residual urine volume (PVR) of >300 mL or refractory urinary retention requiring catheterisation.

RESULTS

We identified 72 patients with CUR who underwent HoLEP and 31 who underwent PVP. Preoperative parameters including median catheterisation duration (3 vs 5 months, P = 0.71), American Urological Association Symptom Index score (AUASI; 18 vs 21, P = 0.24), and PVR (555 vs 473 mL, P = 0.096) were similar between the HoLEP and PVP groups. The HoLEP group had a larger prostate volume (88.5 vs 49 mL, P < 0.001) and higher PSA concentration (4.5 vs 2.4 ng/mL, P = 0.001). At median 6-month follow-up, 71 (99%) HoLEP patients and 23 (74%) PVP patients were catheter-free (P < 0.001). Of the voiding patients, postoperative AUASI (3 vs 4, P = 0.06), maximum urinary flow rate (23 vs 18 mL/s, P = 0.28) and PVR (56.5 vs 54 mL, P = 1.0) were improved in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both HoLEP and PVP are effective at improving urinary parameters in men with CUR. Despite larger prostate volumes, HoLEP had a 99% successful deobstruction rate, thus rendering patients catheter-free.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Opening the flood gates – HLE is superior to PVP for the treatment of CUR

With the expansion in laser technology for treating symptomatic BPH, there are now two main techniques available to the budding urologist. Yet the management of chronic urinary retention (CUR) remains a significant challenge. In this issue of BJUI Jaeger et al. [1]present a retrospective study comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP; using XPS 180 watt and HPS 120 watt systems) in the treatment of CUR.

Both HoLEP and PVP are now well-established treatment methods. Although PVP has seen a greater level of acceptance because of its shorter learning period, its use remains limited by prostate size and concerns about long-term durability. In contrast the favourable and enduring outcomes reported for HoLEP have meant that it is gaining recognition as the new ‘gold standard’ surgical treatment for BPH. Whilst PVP ablates the tissue laterally from the prostatic urethra, HoLEP involves an anatomical enucleation of all the prostatic adenoma before morcellation.

Over the past decade, there has been a shift towards medical management of BPH. Despite the resultant increase in numbers of men developing CUR, best practice for this challenging and clinically important group remains highly debated. The term CUR is used to describe a constellation of presentations, and current imprecise, even arbitrary, definitions make the interpretation of existing studies difficult. Historically, CUR has been almost universally excluded from trials because of the anticipation of poor outcomes and high complication rates, while the presence of detrusor hypotonia, particularly with low-pressure retention, has led to concerns of treatment failure following surgery. This dilemma for urologists has been aggravated by conflicting evidence in the published literature [2].

Jaeger et al. [1] assessed all patients with CUR who were treated in their institution either with HoLEP (72 patients) or PVP (31 patients). CUR was defined as a persistent post-void residual urine volume (PVR) >300 mL or urinary retention refractory to multiple voiding trials. While preoperative urodynamic studies were not routinely performed, those patients found to have low bladder contractility or acontractility were not excluded.

Both HoLEP and PVP produced similarly effective outcomes in terms of symptom score improvement, PVR reduction and Qmax increase in voiding patients. Complication rates were also similar in the two groups (15 and 26% for HoLEP and PVP, respectively, P = 0.27), but, importantly, HoLEP was shown to offer substantially better rates of spontaneous voiding than PVP, 99 vs 74% of patients, in spite of a lower median bladder contractility index in the HoLEP group (73 vs 90, P = 0.012).

Both PVP and HoLEP have previously been studied in isolation in treating patients with CUR. Whilst Woo et al. [3] demonstrated significant reductions in PVR after PVP (GreenLight HPS 120-W), the presence of detrusor under-activity was not established. Outcomes after PVP in patients with urodynamically proven detrusor hypotonia have been shown to be significantly worse than in patients with normal detrusor funtion [4].

The effectiveness of HoLEP has been shown in treating CUR secondary to BPH in a large study of 169 patients with symptom score improvements of 159% and spontaneous voiding in 98.25% [5]. Furthermore, even in patients with proven impaired bladder contractility, HoLEP led to spontaneous voiding in 95% [6] at least in the short term.

The findings from the present study further support the use of HoLEP specifically in CUR. Jaeger et al. are the first to compare the two technologies head on, albeit in a non-randomised study, in the treatment of CUR. Whilst both treatments showed reasonable efficacy despite low or absent bladder contractility in a number of patients, a significant advantage was seen with HoLEP, with the total removal of any obstructing tissue. These results were unaffected by the presence of preoperative impaired bladder on urodynamic studies. This study suggests that HoLEP is superior to PVP in the treatment of CUR, probably because of the larger prostatic channel that enucleation produces. Measurement of postoperative PSA readings would have been a useful addition to illustrate this. Nevertheless, the findings add to the growing body of evidence to support the use of HoLEP in treating CUR, irrespective of preoperative bladder function.

Read the full article

Nicholas Raison and Ben Challacombe

Urology Department, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, UK

References

1 Jaeger CD, Mitchell CR, Mynderse LA, Krambeck AE. Holmium laser enucleation and photoselective vaporization of the prostate for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and chronic urinary retention. BJU Int 2015; 115: 295–9

2 Ghalayini IF, Al-Ghazo MA, Pickard RS. A prospective randomized trial comparing transurethral prostatic resection and clean intermittent self-catheterization in men with chronic urinary retention. BJU Int 2005; 96: 93–7

3 Woo H, Reich O, Bachmann A et al. Outcome of GreenLight HPS 120-W laser therapy in specific patient populations: those in retention, on anticoagulants, and with large prostates (≥ 80 ml). Eur Urol Suppl 2008; 7: 378–83

4 Monoski MA, Gonzalez RR, Sandhu JS, Reddy B, Te AE. Urodynamic predictors of outcomes with photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and preoperative retention. Urology 2006; 68: 312–7

5 Elzayat EA, Habib EI, Elhilali MM. Holmium laser enucleation of prostate for patients in urinary retention. Urology 2005; 66: 789–93

6 Mitchell CR, Mynderse LA, Lightner DJ, Husmann DA, Krambeck AE. Efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients with non-neurogenic impaired bladder contractility: results of a prospective trial. Urology 2014; 83: 428–32

Video: Holmium Laser Enucleation and Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate for Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Chronic Urinary

Holmium Laser Enucleation and Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate for Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Chronic Urinary Retention

Christopher D. Jaeger, Christopher R. Mitchell, Lance A. Mynderse and Amy E. Krambeck

Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA

Read the full article

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate short-term outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and chronic urinary retention (CUR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients with CUR who underwent HoLEP or PVP at our institution over a 3-year period. CUR was defined as a persistent post-void residual urine volume (PVR) of >300 mL or refractory urinary retention requiring catheterisation.

RESULTS

We identified 72 patients with CUR who underwent HoLEP and 31 who underwent PVP. Preoperative parameters including median catheterisation duration (3 vs 5 months, P = 0.71), American Urological Association Symptom Index score (AUASI; 18 vs 21, P = 0.24), and PVR (555 vs 473 mL, P = 0.096) were similar between the HoLEP and PVP groups. The HoLEP group had a larger prostate volume (88.5 vs 49 mL, P < 0.001) and higher PSA concentration (4.5 vs 2.4 ng/mL, P = 0.001). At median 6-month follow-up, 71 (99%) HoLEP patients and 23 (74%) PVP patients were catheter-free (P < 0.001). Of the voiding patients, postoperative AUASI (3 vs 4, P = 0.06), maximum urinary flow rate (23 vs 18 mL/s, P = 0.28) and PVR (56.5 vs 54 mL, P = 1.0) were improved in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both HoLEP and PVP are effective at improving urinary parameters in men with CUR. Despite larger prostate volumes, HoLEP had a 99% successful deobstruction rate, thus rendering patients catheter-free.

Read more articles of the week

© 2022 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.