INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) has been recognized as a viable treatment modality for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and functional outcomes of three different techniques of EEP, including monopolar enucleation (MEP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP). METHODS: The study consisted of a retrospective comparison of pre- and postoperative parameters in men undergoing three types of EEP: MEP, HoLEP, and ThuLEP. Functional parameters were evaluated before and 6 months after surgery, which included the International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum flow rate, postvoid residual volume, prostate volume, and sodium levels of all patients. RESULTS: A total of 551 men with the mean age of 67.1 years were included in the study. Of these, MEP was performed on 95 patients, HoLEP was performed on 254 patients, and ThuLEP on 202 patients. The mean mass of morcellated tissue obtained during the three techniques did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Mean procedure times of ThuLEP and HoLEP were shorter than MEP demonstrating 72, 76, and 86 minutes, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean catheterization time following laser EEPs was shorter than MEP as shown by 1.3, 1.3, and 3.8 days, respectively (p < 0.01). Hospital stay times of HoLEP and ThuLEP were shorter than MEP demonstrated by 3.3, 3.4, and 6.9 days, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients after MEP had significant decrease in postoperative hemoglobin and sodium levels. All the groups showed statistically significant improvement in the aforementioned parameters following treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques of laser enucleation proved to be efficacious in the management of BPH. MEP of the prostate seems to be a highly promising addition to the list of enucleation techniques and was determined to be an effective and acceptable procedure, despite a higher complication rate.
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) has been recognized as a viable treatment modality for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and functional outcomes of three different techniques of EEP, including monopolar enucleation (MEP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP). METHODS: The study consisted of a retrospective comparison of pre- and postoperative parameters in men undergoing three types of EEP: MEP, HoLEP, and ThuLEP. Functional parameters were evaluated before and 6 months after surgery, which included the International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum flow rate, postvoid residual volume, prostate volume, and sodium levels of all patients. RESULTS: A total of 551 men with the mean age of 67.1 years were included in the study. Of these, MEP was performed on 95 patients, HoLEP was performed on 254 patients, and ThuLEP on 202 patients. The mean mass of morcellated tissue obtained during the three techniques did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). Mean procedure times of ThuLEP and HoLEP were shorter than MEP demonstrating 72, 76, and 86 minutes, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean catheterization time following laser EEPs was shorter than MEP as shown by 1.3, 1.3, and 3.8 days, respectively (p < 0.01). Hospital stay times of HoLEP and ThuLEP were shorter than MEP demonstrated by 3.3, 3.4, and 6.9 days, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients after MEP had significant decrease in postoperative hemoglobin and sodium levels. All the groups showed statistically significant improvement in the aforementioned parameters following treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques of laser enucleation proved to be efficacious in the management of BPH. MEP of the prostate seems to be a highly promising addition to the list of enucleation techniques and was determined to be an effective and acceptable procedure, despite a higher complication rate.
Authors: Mark Taratkin; Christopher Netsch; Dmitry Enikeev; Andreas J Gross; Thomas R W Herrmann; Dmitry Korolev; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Petr Glybochko; Benedikt Becker Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Benedikt Becker; Dmitry Enikeev; Petr Glybochko; Leonid Rapoport; Mark Taratkin; Andreas J Gross; Viktoriya Vinnichenko; Thomas R W Herrmann; Christopher Netsch Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 4.226