Kadir Omur Gunseren1, Serkan Akdemir2, Mehmet Cagatay Çiçek3, Ali Yıldız4, Murat Arslan4, İsmet Yavaşcaoğlu3, Hakan Vuruskan3. 1. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey, kadiromurgunseren@gmail.com. 2. Ekol Hospital, Izmir, Turkey. 3. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey. 4. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To compare the prostate removal speeds of 3 enucleation techniques and to evaluate how the operating times change depending on the prostate volume. METHODS: Medical records of patients with 80-g or larger prostates who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), or open prostatectomy (OP) due to medical treatment-resistant benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to the surgical procedure. Age, BMI, prostate weights, total operation times, prostate removal speeds, hospitalization and catheterization days, complications, and improvements on functional outcomes in the 3rd month of follow-up were compared between groups. In addition, the association between prostate weight and total operation time was analyzed for each group. RESULTS: HoLEP, LSP, and OP groups consisted of 60, 61, and 37 patients, respectively. While HoLEP was similar to OP in terms of prostate removal speed and total operation time, LSP was statistically slower and required more operation time than HoLEP and OP. There was a relationship between prostate weight and total operation time only in HoLEP. CONCLUSION: LSP, one of the enucleation techniques in the treatment of large prostates, was slower and required more operation time than HoLEP and OP in terms of total operation time and prostate removal speed. HoLEP seems going to be the fastest candidate for the rapid removal of large prostates in the future.
INTRODUCTION: To compare the prostate removal speeds of 3 enucleation techniques and to evaluate how the operating times change depending on the prostate volume. METHODS: Medical records of patients with 80-g or larger prostates who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), or open prostatectomy (OP) due to medical treatment-resistant benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to the surgical procedure. Age, BMI, prostate weights, total operation times, prostate removal speeds, hospitalization and catheterization days, complications, and improvements on functional outcomes in the 3rd month of follow-up were compared between groups. In addition, the association between prostate weight and total operation time was analyzed for each group. RESULTS: HoLEP, LSP, and OP groups consisted of 60, 61, and 37 patients, respectively. While HoLEP was similar to OP in terms of prostate removal speed and total operation time, LSP was statistically slower and required more operation time than HoLEP and OP. There was a relationship between prostate weight and total operation time only in HoLEP. CONCLUSION: LSP, one of the enucleation techniques in the treatment of large prostates, was slower and required more operation time than HoLEP and OP in terms of total operation time and prostate removal speed. HoLEP seems going to be the fastest candidate for the rapid removal of large prostates in the future.
Authors: Mehmet Yilmaz; Mustafa Karaaslan; Halil Cagri Aybal; Maximilian Ferry von Bargen; Senol Tonyali; Tuncay Toprak; Christian Gratzke; Arkadiusz Miernik Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2022-07-31