Grégoire Robert1, Jean-Nicolas Cornu2, Marc Fourmarier3, Christian Saussine4, Aurélien Descazeaud5, Abdel-Rahmène Azzouzi6, Eric Vicaut7, Bertrand Lukacs2. 1. Service d'Urologie, CHU de Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 2. Service d'Urologie, Hôpital Tenon, Université Paris-6, Paris, France. 3. Service d'Urologie, Centre Hospitalier du Pays d'Aix, Aix-en-Provence, Provence, France. 4. Service d'Urologie, NHC, Strasbourg, France. 5. Service de Chirurgie Urologique, Hôpital Dupuytren, CHU de Limoges, Limoges, France. 6. Service d'Urologie, CHU d'Angers, Angers, France. 7. Clinical Research Unit, Lariboisière-Fernand Widal Hospital, University Paris Diderot, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the step-by-step learning curve of the holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) surgical technique. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicentre observational study was conducted, involving surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate and open prostatectomy but never having performed HoLEP. The main judgment criterion was the ability of the surgeon to perform four consecutive successful procedures, defined by the following: complete enucleation and morcellation within <90 min, without any conversion to standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), with acceptable stress, and with acceptable difficulty (evaluated by Likert scales). Each surgeon included 20 consecutive cases. RESULTS: Of nine centres, three abandoned HoLEP before the end of the study due to complications, and one was excluded for treating patients off protocol. Only one centre achieved the main judgment criterion of four consecutive successful HoLEP procedures. Overall, the procedures were successfully performed in 43.6% of cases. Reasons for unsuccessful procedures were mainly operative time >90 min (n = 51), followed by conversion to TURP (n = 14), incomplete morcellation (n = 8), significant stress (n = 9), or difficulty (n = 14) during HoLEP. Ignoring operating time, 64% of procedures were successful and four out of five centres did four consecutive successful cases. Of the five centres that completed the study, four chose to continue HoLEP. CONCLUSION: Even in a prospective training structure, HoLEP has a steep learning curve exceeding 20 cases, with almost half of our centres choosing to abandon or not to continue with the technique. Operating time and difficulty of the enucleation seem the most important problems for a beginner. A more intensely mentored and structured mentorship programme might allow safer adoption of the procedure.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the step-by-step learning curve of the holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) surgical technique. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicentre observational study was conducted, involving surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate and open prostatectomy but never having performed HoLEP. The main judgment criterion was the ability of the surgeon to perform four consecutive successful procedures, defined by the following: complete enucleation and morcellation within <90 min, without any conversion to standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), with acceptable stress, and with acceptable difficulty (evaluated by Likert scales). Each surgeon included 20 consecutive cases. RESULTS: Of nine centres, three abandoned HoLEP before the end of the study due to complications, and one was excluded for treating patients off protocol. Only one centre achieved the main judgment criterion of four consecutive successful HoLEP procedures. Overall, the procedures were successfully performed in 43.6% of cases. Reasons for unsuccessful procedures were mainly operative time >90 min (n = 51), followed by conversion to TURP (n = 14), incomplete morcellation (n = 8), significant stress (n = 9), or difficulty (n = 14) during HoLEP. Ignoring operating time, 64% of procedures were successful and four out of five centres did four consecutive successful cases. Of the five centres that completed the study, four chose to continue HoLEP. CONCLUSION: Even in a prospective training structure, HoLEP has a steep learning curve exceeding 20 cases, with almost half of our centres choosing to abandon or not to continue with the technique. Operating time and difficulty of the enucleation seem the most important problems for a beginner. A more intensely mentored and structured mentorship programme might allow safer adoption of the procedure.
Authors: P- M Patard; M Roumiguie; S Sanson; J- B Beauval; E Huyghe; M Soulié; B Malavaud; X Gamé; P Rischmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Frank Rücker; Karin Lehrich; Axel Böhme; Mario Zacharias; Sascha A Ahyai; Jens Hansen Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Luca Cindolo; Lorenzo Ruggera; Paolo Destefanis; Claudio Dadone; Giovanni Ferrari Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-01-02 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Vincent Misraï; Marie Pasquie; Benoit Bordier; Benjamin Elman; Jean Michel Lhez; Julien Guillotreau; Kevin Zorn Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Dmitry Enikeev; Andrey Morozov; Mark Taratkin; Vincent Misrai; Enrique Rijo; Alexei Podoinitsin; Svetlana Gabdullina; Thomas R W Herrmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 4.226