Madhumita Parmar1, Jonathan E Katz1, Ruben Blachman-Braun1, Nicholas A Smith1, Sabrina M Oneto2, Shivank Bhatia3,4, Oleksandr N Kryvenko1,2,4, Hemendra N Shah5,6. 1. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 3. Department of International Radiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 4. Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. drhemendrashah@yahoo.co.in. 6. Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. drhemendrashah@yahoo.co.in.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of Holmium laser enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP) for management of persistent or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms after prior prostate artery embolization (PAE). We also evaluated histopathological changes in prostate after PAE. METHODS: Ten patients who underwent HoLEP after prior PAE were matched according to age, weight of resected prostate tissue, and anticoagulation status in 1:2 ratio with patients who underwent HoLEP without prior PAE by a researcher who was blinded to patient's outcome at the time of matching. Histopathological examination of prostate tissue was performed to look for changes related to prior PAE. Patient's demographics, perioperative parameters, and follow-up data were retrospectively compared. RESULTS: The median interval between PAE and HoLEP was 25 months [IQR 14.5-37.5]. Patients demographic were comparable in both groups. Intra-operatively plane of enucleation were well-maintained in spite of prior PAE. The differences in duration of surgery, enucleation efficiency, hemoglobin drop, duration of catheterization and hospital stay, and complications were statistically insignificant. Incidental prostate cancer was identified in 10% specimens from both groups. Post-PAE prostate specimens demonstrated evidence of remote-healed infarction represented by dense hyalinized paucicellur connective tissue with surrounding squamous metaplasia. There were no statistically significant differences in AUA symptom scores, maximum urine flow rate, post-void residual urine volume, and PSA at 3- and 6-month follow-up between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Plane of enucleation is well-maintained after prior PAE. Salvage HoLEP is safe and effective after previous PAE and provide outcome comparable with HoLEP as a primary procedure.
PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of Holmium laser enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP) for management of persistent or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms after prior prostate artery embolization (PAE). We also evaluated histopathological changes in prostate after PAE. METHODS: Ten patients who underwent HoLEP after prior PAE were matched according to age, weight of resected prostate tissue, and anticoagulation status in 1:2 ratio with patients who underwent HoLEP without prior PAE by a researcher who was blinded to patient's outcome at the time of matching. Histopathological examination of prostate tissue was performed to look for changes related to prior PAE. Patient's demographics, perioperative parameters, and follow-up data were retrospectively compared. RESULTS: The median interval between PAE and HoLEP was 25 months [IQR 14.5-37.5]. Patients demographic were comparable in both groups. Intra-operatively plane of enucleation were well-maintained in spite of prior PAE. The differences in duration of surgery, enucleation efficiency, hemoglobin drop, duration of catheterization and hospital stay, and complications were statistically insignificant. Incidental prostate cancer was identified in 10% specimens from both groups. Post-PAE prostate specimens demonstrated evidence of remote-healed infarction represented by dense hyalinized paucicellur connective tissue with surrounding squamous metaplasia. There were no statistically significant differences in AUA symptom scores, maximum urine flow rate, post-void residual urine volume, and PSA at 3- and 6-month follow-up between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Plane of enucleation is well-maintained after prior PAE. Salvage HoLEP is safe and effective after previous PAE and provide outcome comparable with HoLEP as a primary procedure.