Tag Archive for: #UroBPH

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.

Article of the week: Information on surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia on YouTube is highly biased and misleading

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.

In addition to this post, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community and a visual abstract for a swift overview of the article. Please use the comment buttons below to join the conversation.

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

Information on surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia on YouTube is highly biased and misleading

Patrick Betschart*, Manolis Pratsinis*, Gautier Müllhaupt*, Roman Rechner*, Thomas RW Herrmann, Christian Gratzke, Hans–Peter Schmid*, Valentin Zumstein* and Dominik Abt*

*Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital St Gallen, St Gallen, Urology Clinic, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland, and Department of Urology, Albert–Ludwigs–University, Freiburg, Germany

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the quality of videos on the surgical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) available on YouTube, given that such video‐sharing platforms are frequently used as sources of patient information and the therapeutic landscape of LUTS/BPH has evolved substantially during recent years.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search for videos on YouTube addressing treatment options for LUTS/BPH was performed in May 2019. Measures assessed included basic data (e.g. number of views), grade of misinformation and reporting of conflicts of interest. The quality of content was analysed using the validated DISCERN questionnaire. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

Fig. 1. Degree of misinformation compared to currently available evidence on surgical BPH treatment 7 (no: green; very little: light green; moderate: light blue; high: light red; extreme: dark red), rate of commercial bias (yes: red; no: light green) and rate of declaration of conflicts of interests (COI; yes: blue; no: orange) for the analysed videos divided by topics. BipolEP, bipolar enucleation of the prostate; HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; iTIND, temporary implantable Nitinol device; PAE, prostatic artery embolization; ThuLEP, thulium laser enucleation of the prostate

Results

A total of 159 videos with a median (range) of 8570 (648–2 384 391) views were included in the analysis. Only 21 videos (13.2%) were rated as containing no misinformation, 26 (16.4%) were free of commercial bias, and two (1.3%) disclosed potential conflicts of interest. According to DISCERN, the median overall quality of the videos was low (2 out of 5 points for question 16). Only four of the 15 assessed categories (bipolar and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, transurethral resection of the prostate and patient‐based search terms) were scored as having moderate median overall quality (3 points).

Conclusion

Most videos on the surgical treatment of LUTS/BPH on YouTube had a low quality of content, provided misinformation, were subject to commercial bias and did not report on conflicts of interest. These findings emphasize the importance of thorough doctor–patient communication and active recommendation of unbiased patient education materials.

Article of the week: A randomized trial comparing bipolar TUVP with GreenLight laser PVP for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction

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.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community and a podcast prepared by one of our Resident podcasters; we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

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

A randomized trial comparing bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight laser (xps‐180watt) photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction: outcomes after 2 years 

Fady K. Ghobrial, Ahmed Shoma, Ahmed M. Elshal, Mahmoud Laymon, Nasr El-Tabey, Adel Nabeeh and Ahmed A. Shokeir

Urology Department, Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

Abstract

Objective

To test the non‐inferiority of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) compared to GreenLight laser (GL) photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for reduction of benign prostatic hyperplasia‐related lower urinary tract symptoms in a randomized trial.

Methods

Eligible patients with prostate volumes of 30–80 mL were randomly allocated to GL‐PVP (n = 58) or bipolar TUVP (n = 61). Non‐inferiority of symptom score (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]) at 24 months was evaluated. All peri‐operative variables were recorded and compared. Urinary (IPSS, maximum urinary flow rate and post‐void residual urine volume) and sexual (International Index of Erectile Function‐15) outcome measures were evaluated at 1, 4, 12 and 24 months. Need for retreatment and complications, change in PSA level and health resources‐related costs of both procedures were recorded and compared.

Results

Baseline and peri‐operative variables were similar in the two groups. At 1, 4, 12 and 24 months, 117, 116, 99 and 96 patients, respectively, were evaluable. Regarding urinary outcome measures, there was no significant difference between the groups. The mean ± sd IPSS at 1 and 2 years was 7.1 ± 3 and 7.9 ± 2.9 (P = 0.8), respectively, after GL‐PVP and 6.3 ± 3.1 and 7.2 ± 2.8, respectively, after bipolar TUVP (P = 0.31). At 24 months, the mean difference in IPSS was 0.7 (95% confidence interval −0.6 to 2.3; P = 0.6). The median (range) postoperative PSA reduction was 64.7 (25–99)% and 65.9 (50–99)% (P = 0.006) after GL‐PVP, and 32.1 (28.6–89.7)% and 39.3 (68.8–90.5)% (P = 0.005) after bipolar TUVP, at 1 and 2 years, respectively. After 2 years, retreatment for recurrent bladder outlet obstruction was reported in eight (13.8%) and 10 (16.4%) patients in the GL‐PVP and bipolar TUVP groups, respectively (P = 0.8). The mean estimated cost per bipolar TUVP procedure was significantly lower than per GL‐PVP procedure after 24 months (P = 0.01).

Conclusions

In terms of symptom control, bipolar TUVP was not inferior to GL‐PVP at 2 years. Durability of the outcome needs to be tracked. The greater cost of GL‐PVP compared with bipolar TUVP is an important concern.

Image courtesy of BJUI Knowledge

Editorial: Vaporization is vaporization, but not at any cost…

The paper by Ghobrial et al. [1] confirms that bipolar electrocautery vaporization is more cost‐effective than GreenLight Laser vaporization, as the two techniques are equally effective but GreenLight vaporization is more costly in the smaller prostates being studied.

Underpinning the analysis was a well‐conducted randomized controlled trial, showing equivalent peri‐operative and postoperative measures with the two procedures and no difference in the primary endpoint of IPSS reduction at 2 years. The two techniques were performed in a similar manner and were equally efficient and safe as expected.

Philosophically, the clinical results are both unsurprising and expected, and confirm the long‐held belief that the energy source employed for vaporization and, for that matter, enucleation, is of secondary concern compared to the skill and dedication of the operator. The technique in either case should result in comparable efficacy, leaving cost‐effectiveness to be an important way to help both urologists and administrators discriminate between them.

Although the costs are not necessarily going to be comparable with those in other jurisdictions, this will apply equally to both treatments and this study therefore represents an excellent attempt to cost both procedures, removing equivalent costs. Importantly, this assessment included the costs of both readmissions and interventions over the full 24‐month period. This captures the bulk of the important complications after these types of procedures and adds to the validity of the findings.

The big difference between the costs of the two treatments being studied is, of course, ‘capital equipment including maintenance’. The single‐use fibre model rather than the cost of the machine has been the mainstay for the profitability of laser companies since the inception of laser prostatectomy. The maintenance contract has been a further cost, which is always underestimated. Reusability of the laser fibres is one way of diminishing per‐procedure costs, but is only consistently possible for Holmium end‐fire fibres [2]. The fact that the authors estimate of these costs was a ‘case share in 5‐year budget plan’ also suggests that the true cost of the use of the GreenLight laser is underestimated.

With the burgeoning number of new techniques and technologies for the treatment of BPH emerging, and new treatment paradigms being proposed, let alone the increasingly negative focus on medical waste [3] and the increasing use of single‐use disposable handpieces/tubing/drapes/fibres, articles such as this are timely. A standardized methodology for assessing the cost‐effectiveness of treatments for BPH is needed and should be an essential part of pivotal studies and therefore the regulatory approval processes.

by Peter Gilling

 

References

  1. Ghobrial FKShoma AElshal AM et al. A randomized trial comparing bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight laser (xps‐180watt) photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction: outcomes after 2 years. BJU Int2020124144– 52
  2. Fraundorfer MRGilling PJKennett KMDunton NGHolmium laser resection of the prostate is more cost effective than transurethral resection of the prostate: results of a randomized prospective study. Urology 200157454– 8
  3. Rose EDModlin DMCiampa MLMangieri CWFaler BJBandera BCEvaluation of operative waste in a military medical center: analysis of operating room cost and waste during surgical cases. Am Surg. 201985717– 20

 

Residents’ podcast: A randomized trial comparing bipolar TUVP with GreenLight laser PVP for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction: outcomes after 2 years

Maria Uloko is a Urology Resident at the University of Minnesota Hospital.

A randomized trial comparing bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight laser (xps‐180watt) photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction: outcomes after 2 years

Abstract

Objective

To test the non‐inferiority of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) compared to GreenLight laser (GL) photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for reduction of benign prostatic hyperplasia‐related lower urinary tract symptoms in a randomized trial.

Methods

Eligible patients with prostate volumes of 30–80 mL were randomly allocated to GL‐PVP (n = 58) or bipolar TUVP (n = 61). Non‐inferiority of symptom score (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]) at 24 months was evaluated. All peri‐operative variables were recorded and compared. Urinary (IPSS, maximum urinary flow rate and post‐void residual urine volume) and sexual (International Index of Erectile Function‐15) outcome measures were evaluated at 1, 4, 12 and 24 months. Need for retreatment and complications, change in PSA level and health resources‐related costs of both procedures were recorded and compared.

Results

Baseline and peri‐operative variables were similar in the two groups. At 1, 4, 12 and 24 months, 117, 116, 99 and 96 patients, respectively, were evaluable. Regarding urinary outcome measures, there was no significant difference between the groups. The mean ± sd IPSS at 1 and 2 years was 7.1 ± 3 and 7.9 ± 2.9 (P = 0.8), respectively, after GL‐PVP and 6.3 ± 3.1 and 7.2 ± 2.8, respectively, after bipolar TUVP (P = 0.31). At 24 months, the mean difference in IPSS was 0.7 (95% confidence interval −0.6 to 2.3; P = 0.6). The median (range) postoperative PSA reduction was 64.7 (25–99)% and 65.9 (50–99)% (P = 0.006) after GL‐PVP, and 32.1 (28.6–89.7)% and 39.3 (68.8–90.5)% (P = 0.005) after bipolar TUVP, at 1 and 2 years, respectively. After 2 years, retreatment for recurrent bladder outlet obstruction was reported in eight (13.8%) and 10 (16.4%) patients in the GL‐PVP and bipolar TUVP groups, respectively (P = 0.8). The mean estimated cost per bipolar TUVP procedure was significantly lower than per GL‐PVP procedure after 24 months (P = 0.01).

Conclusions

In terms of symptom control, bipolar TUVP was not inferior to GL‐PVP at 2 years. Durability of the outcome needs to be tracked. The greater cost of GL‐PVP compared with bipolar TUVP is an important concern.

 

BJUI Podcasts are available on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262

 

 

Article of the week: Aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large prostates: 6‐month results from the WATER II trial

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.

We invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

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

Aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large prostates (80–150 mL): 6‐month results from the WATER II trial

Mihir Desai*, Mo Bidair, Kevin C. Zorn, Andrew Trainer§, Andrew Arther§, Eugene Kramolowsky, Leo Doumanian*, Dean Elterman**, Ronald P. Kaufman Jr.††, James Lingeman‡‡, Amy Krambeck‡‡, Gregg Eure§§, Gopal Badlani¶¶, Mark Plante***, Edward Uchio†††, Greg Gin†††, Larry Goldenberg‡‡‡, Ryan Paterson‡‡‡, Alan So‡‡‡, Mitch Humphreys§§§, Claus Roehrborn¶¶¶, Steven Kaplan****, Jay Motola**** and Naeem Bhojani

*Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, San Diego Clinical Trials, San Diego, CA, USA, University of Montreal Hospital Center, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada, §Adult Pediatric Urology and Urogynecology, P.C., Omaha, NE, Virginia Urology, Richmond, VA, USA, **University of Toronto – University HealthNetwork, Toronto, ON, Canada, ††Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, ‡‡Indiana University Health Physicians, Indianapolis, IN, §§Urology of Virginia, Virginia Beach, VA, ¶¶Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, ***University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT, †††VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA, USA, ‡‡‡University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, §§§Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, ¶¶¶UT Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, and ****Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

 

Abstract

Objective

To present 6‐month safety and effectiveness data from a multicentre prospective study of aquablation in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with prostate volumes between 80 and 150 mL.

Methods

Between September and December 2017, 101 men with LUTS attributable to BPH were prospectively enrolled at 16 centers in Canada and the USA.

Results

The mean prostate volume was 107 mL. The mean length of hospital stay after the aquablation procedure was 1.6 days (range: same day to 6 days). The primary safety endpoint (Clavien–Dindo grade 2 or higher or any grade 1 event resulting in persistent disability) at 3 months occurred in 45.5% of men, which met the study design goal of < 65% (P < 0.001). At 6 months, 22% of the patients had experienced a Clavien–Dindo grade 2, 14% a grade 3 and 5% a grade 4 adverse event. Bleeding complications requiring intervention and/or transfusion were recorded in eight patients prior to discharge and in six patients after discharge. The mean International Prostate Symptom Score improved from 23.2 ± 6.3 at baseline to 6.7 ± 5.1 at 3 months, meeting the study’s primary efficacy endpoint goal (P < 0.001). The maximum urinary flow rate increased from 8.7 to 18.8 mL/s (P < 0.001) and post‐void residual urine volume decreased from 131 at baseline to 47 at 6 months (P < 0.0001). At 6 months, prostate‐specific antigen concentration reduced from 7.1 ± 5.9 ng/mL at baseline to 4.0 ± 3.9 ng/mL, a 44% reduction.

Conclusions

Aquablation is safe and effective in treating men with larger prostates (80–150 mL), without significant increase in procedure or resection time.

Article of the month: In-hospital cost analysis of PAE compared to TURP

Every month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month 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 editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. These are 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. 

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

In‐hospital cost analysis of prostatic artery embolization compared with transurethral resection of the prostate: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

As you can imagine, these are very important tests that you must have done regularly in order to try to catch life-threatening illnesses as early as possible. Sadly, as important as these tests may be, they are expensive. Prohibitively expensive to some. If you find yourself in this situation you should try to look for services, charity.

Gautier Müllhaupt*, Lukas Hechelhammer, Daniel S. Engeler*, Sabine Güsewell, Patrick Betschart*, Valentin Zumstein*, Thomas M. Kessler§, Hans-Peter Schmid*, Livio Mordasini* and Dominik Abt*
*Department of Urology, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Clinical Trials Unit, St. Gallen Cantonal Hospital, St Gallen and §Department of Neuro-Urology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

Abstract

Objectives

To perform a post hoc analysis of in‐hospital costs incurred in a randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Patients and Methods

In‐hospital costs arising from PAE and TURP were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs, including those arising from surgical and interventional procedures, consumables, personnel and accommodation, were analysed for all of the study participants and compared between PAE and TURP using descriptive analysis and two‐sided t‐tests, adjusted for unequal variance within groups (Welch t‐test).

Fig. 1. Cost summary for prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and TURP, grouped by mean total (A), procedural (B), and inpatient stay (C) costs. stay, inpatient stay; proc, surgical procedure; suppl, medical supplies; facil, operation facilities; phys, physician professional charges; anaest, anaesthesia; patho, pathology; lab, laboratory services; medic, medication; accom, accommodation; nurs, services by nursing specialists; admin, administrative costs, San Francisco based Ardenwood provides Christian Science nursing care.

Results

The mean total costs per patient (±sd) were higher for TURP, at €9137 ± 3301, than for PAE, at €8185 ± 1630. The mean difference of €952 was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). While the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for PAE (mean difference €623 [P = 0.009]), costs apart from the procedure were significantly lower for PAE, with a mean difference of €1627 (P < 0.001). Procedural costs of €1433 ± 552 for TURP were mainly incurred by anaesthesia, whereas €2590 ± 628 for medical supplies were the main cost factor for PAE.

Conclusions

Since in‐hospital costs are similar but PAE and TURP have different efficacy and safety profiles, the patient’s clinical condition and expectations – rather than finances – should be taken into account when deciding between PAE and TURP.

Editorial: Prostatic Artery Embolization: Adding to the arsenal against the hapless prostate.

Ever since Hugh Hampton Young introduced the cold punch method in 1909 for ‘punching out’ pieces of the prostate through a modified urethroscope, urologists have used a bewildering array of technology and methods to wage war against the hapless prostate. Methods in the current arsenal include ‘heat and kill’ (transurethral needle ablation, transurethral microwave therapy and Rezum treatment), ‘freeze and kill’ (cryotherapy), ‘slice’ (transurethral incision of prostate), ‘dice’ (transurethral resection of prostate [TURP]), ‘eviscerate and leave the prostate a shell of its former self’ (open prostatectomy and holmium laser enucleation of prostate), ‘suspend and open’ (Urolift), ‘poison’ (intraprostatic injections with Botox, alcohol and NX 1207), ‘vaporize’ (photoselective vaporization of the prostate [PVP]) and, if the prostate dares to turn cancerous, then we just cut it out with scalpels or robots. Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) adds to our already impressive armamentarium via a technique similar to strangulation by blocking arterial flow and essentially causing prostatic infarction. PAE also brings a member of another medical discipline to the frontline: the radiologist.

In this issue of BJUI, Müllhaupt et al. [1] report an in-hospital cost analysis of PAE compared to TURP, in their post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Treatment costs are an important component of healthcare but are a narrow and focused view of the overall management of BPH in an individual patient. The authors report that the in-hospital costs for PAE and TURP are similar and, therefore, cost should not be a consideration when deciding between PAE and TURP. Interestingly, the main procedural costs for TURP were anaesthesia, and the main cost factor for PAE was medical supplies. The urologist and radiologist physician charges were ~13% and ~15% of the procedural costs, respectively. So, if the costs of PAE and TURP are similar, how do you assess which to use?

The article by Müllhaupt et al. should be read in conjunction with other papers describing the efficacy, safety and outcomes of PAE compared to TURP, especially the original article by Abt et al. [2] from which this cost analysis is derived and the UK-ROPE study by Ray et al. [3].

Historically, prostatic infarction is known to be a possible result of cross-clamping the aorta for coronary or aortic surgery, hypotensive myocardial infarction or septic shock. PAE is an iatrogenic cause of prostatic infarction. In 1947, Wilbur G. Rogers [7], in ‘Infarct of the Prostate’, documented that ‘There is first swelling of the area involved, with degeneration and necrosis of the cells. This may be followed by absorption of the damaged area and fibrosis and cicatrization of the parts so that eventually the volume is much less than it was originally’. This is one of the early descriptions of how PAE potentially works.

Prostatic artery embolization as a technique is feasible and has been shown to be relatively safe and efficacious in certain specialized institutions, as shown by the UK-ROPE study [3] and by Abt et al. [2]. It should be noted that PAE can be a technically challenging procedure and, although bilateral embolization is the goal, only unilateral embolization is possible in 25% of cases [1]. Highly specialized training is required, and the technique continues to evolve to avoid embolization of extraprostatic branches [3]. PAE is more painful than TURP, with higher reported pain on a visual analogue scale and higher analgesic use [2], but is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay [1,2]. PAE is reported to be associated with an earlier return to normal activities but is less effective than TURP at 12 weeks with regard to changes in maximum rate of urinary flow, postvoid residual urine, prostate volume and desobstructive effectiveness according to pressure flow studies [2] and has a 20% reoperation rate after 12 months [3].

There are still some questions and issues surrounding PAE that may eventually be addressed with time and further studies. Embolizing an artery causes cell death and necrosis and eventual atrophy. This process is uncontrolled, however, and unpredictable in any individual patient. There is no way to know how much tissue or which part of the prostate is going to infarct and undergo necrosis with unilateral or bilateral embolization. If or when a potential abscess forms has not been defined or studied.

The longer-term effects of radiation dosage for PAE will not be known for many years. In the Abt et al. study cohort [2], the radiation dose (dose area product [DAP]) was 176.5 Gy/cm2. A standard anteroposterior and lateral chest X-ray exposes the patient to 0.3 Gy/cm2. An abdominal CT scan exposes the patient to ~32 Gy/cm2. PAE is thus roughly equivalent to ~5–10 standard abdominal/pelvic CT scans (more if using ultra-low dose scanners), 586 chest X-rays, 4.4 barium enemas or 8.8 voiding cysto-urethrograms. Markar et al. [4] reported that there was a significant increase in abdominal cancer within the radiation field in 14 150 patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), with 18% of patients who underwent EVAR succumbing to cancer. The mean radiation exposure (or DAP) in a review of 24 studies on EVAR [5] was 79.48 Gy/cm2, which is approximately half the radiation exposure of PAE.

Müllhaupt et al. [1] showed that PAE was associated with a quicker return to normal activities and a shorter length of stay than TURP, with similar in-hospital costs in Switzerland. Cost, however, must be considered alongside safety and efficacy data both in the short and long term. It is important to appreciate the specialized and technical expertise required to safely perform PAE and the importance of a urologist being part of the multidisciplinary management team as recommended in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines [6] (IPG611 April 2018). Radiation exposure will need close scrutiny and detailed reporting to document long-term effects, as demonstrated in the EVAR trials. Radiation dosage is cumulative over a lifetime and this must be considered when other interventional radiological procedures such as coronary angiograms and positron-emission tomography/CT are becoming more common. PAE should be compared with other emerging minimally invasive BPH procedures such as Urolift and Rezum in future studies, instead of just TURP to determine its role in BPH management and whether the radiation dose is justified. Longer-term studies are needed to assess the costs of managing any long-term
complications, re-operation rates and longer-term efficacy associated with PAE.

by Peter Chin
South Coast Urology, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

References

  1. Müllhaupt G, Hechelhammer L, Engeler D et al. In-Hospital cost analysis of prostatic artery embolization compared to transurethral resection of the prostate: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 2019;123: 1055-60
  2. Abt D, Hechelhammer L, Müllhaupt G et al. Comparison of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: randomized, open label, noninferiority trial. BMJ 2018; 361: k2338
  3. Ray AF, Powell J, Speakman MJ et al. Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity-matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK-ROPE study). BJU Int 2018; 122: 270–82
  4. Markar SR, Vidal-Diez A, Sounderajah V et al. A population-based cohort study examining the risk of abdominal cancer after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2018; Article in Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2018.09.058 [Epub ahead of print]
  5. Monastiriotis S, Comito M, Lapropoulos N. Radiation exposure in endovascular repair of abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2015; 62: 753–61
  6. NICE Guidance. Prostate artery embolisation for lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 2018; 121: 825–34
  7. Rogers WG. Infarct of the prostate. J Urol 1947; 57: 484–7

 

Article of the week: Symptom relief and anejaculation after aquablation or transurethral resection of the prostate: subgroup analysis from a blinded randomized trial

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.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. These are 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. 

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

Symptom relief and anejaculation after aquablation or transurethral resection of the prostate: subgroup analysis from a blinded randomized trial

Mark Plante1, Peter Gilling2, Neil Barber3, Mohamed Bidair4, Paul Anderson5, Mark Sutton6, Tev Aho7, Eugene Kramolowsky8, Andrew Thomas9, Barrett Cowan10, Ronald P. Kaufman Jr11, Andrew Trainer12, Andrew Arther12, Gopal Badlani13, Mihir Desai14, Leo Doumanian14, Alexis E. Te15, Mark DeGuenther16 and Claus Roehrborn17

 

1University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT, USA, 2Tauranga Urology Research, Tauranga, New Zealand, 3Frimley Park Hospital, Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK, 4San Diego Clinical Trials, San Diego, CA, USA, 5Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, 6Houston Metro Urology, Houston, TX, USA, 7Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK, 8Virginia Urology, Richmond, VA, USA, 9Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend, Wales, UK, 10Urology Associates, P.C., Englewood, CO, 11Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, 12Adult Pediatric Urology and Urogynecology, P.C., Omaha, NE, 13Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 14Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 15Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, 16Urology Centers of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, and 17Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA

 

Abstract

Objective

To test the hypothesis that benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) robotic surgery with aquablation would have a more pronounced benefit in certain patient subgroups, such as men with more challenging anatomies (e.g. large prostates, large middle lobes) and men with moderate BPH.

Methods

We conducted prespecified and post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses from a double‐blind, multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial that compared transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) using either standard electrocautery vs surgery using robotic waterjet (aquablation) to determine whether certain baseline factors predicted more marked responses after aquablation as compared with TURP. The primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of Clavien–Dindo persistent grade 1 or grade ≥2 surgical complications.

Results

For men with larger prostates (50–80 g), the mean IPSS reduction was four points greater after aquablation than after TURP (P = 0.001), a larger difference than the overall result (1.8 points; P = 0.135). Similarly, the primary safety endpoint difference (20% vs 46% [26% difference]; P = 0.008) was greater for men with large prostate compared with the overall result (26% vs 42% [16% difference]; P = 0.015). Postoperative anejaculation was also less common after aquablation compared with TURP in sexually active men with large prostates (2% vs 41%; P < 0.001) vs the overall results (10% vs 36%; P < 0.001). Exploratory analysis showed larger IPSS changes after aquablation in men with enlarged middle lobes, men with severe middle lobe obstruction, men with a low baseline maximum urinary flow rate, and men with elevated (>100) post‐void residual urine volume.

Conclusions

In men with moderate‐to‐severe lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to BPH and larger, more complex prostates, aquablation was associated with both superior symptom score improvements and a superior safety profile, with a significantly lower rate of postoperative anejaculation. The standardized, robotically executed, surgical approach with aquablation may overcome the increased outcome variability in more complex anatomy, resulting in superior symptom score reduction.

© 2020 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.