Adri M Durant1, Jonathan Moore2, Sandeep Voleti3, Sarah Wu3, Lanyu Mi4, Gopal Narang3, Scott Cheney3, Mitchell Humphreys3. 1. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA. Durant.Adri@mayo.edu. 2. Department of Urology, UC Davis, Davis, CA, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA. 4. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the safety, efficacy and trends in index procedures leading to salvage holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (S-HoLEP). METHODS: This was a single-institution retrospective review of HoLEPs performed between 2006 and 2020. Patients who underwent S-HoLEP were compared to those undergoing primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (P-HoLEP). The endpoint of primary interest were functional outcomes. Changes in index procedures over the study period were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 633 HoLEPs were performed during the study, with 217 being S-HoLEP. The S-HoLEP cohort was older than P-HoLEP cohort, 71.2 years vs 68.8 years (p = 0.03). All other factors were well matched. The most common index procedures prior to S-HoLEP included transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (87, 40.1%), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) (44, 20.3%), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) (24, 11.1%) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) (24, 11.1%). Preoperative prostate volume, IPSS and Qmax were similar between groups. Intra-operatively, S-HoLEP had longer procedure and morcellation times (p = 0.01 and 0.007). Postoperatively, the S-HoLEP cohort had longer catheter duration and hospitalization (both p < 0.001). Postoperative Qmax, IPSS and 90-day complication rates were similar. On temporal analysis, minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) have become more prevalent as index procedures. CONCLUSION: S-HoLEP is safe and efficacious for patients requiring additional BPH surgical intervention. S-HoLEP patients had longer operative times and hospital stays but equivalent postoperative functional outcomes compared to P-HoLEP. As MIST mature and gain traction, it is expected that rates of S-HoLEP will continue to rise.
PURPOSE: To study the safety, efficacy and trends in index procedures leading to salvage holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (S-HoLEP). METHODS: This was a single-institution retrospective review of HoLEPs performed between 2006 and 2020. Patients who underwent S-HoLEP were compared to those undergoing primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (P-HoLEP). The endpoint of primary interest were functional outcomes. Changes in index procedures over the study period were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 633 HoLEPs were performed during the study, with 217 being S-HoLEP. The S-HoLEP cohort was older than P-HoLEP cohort, 71.2 years vs 68.8 years (p = 0.03). All other factors were well matched. The most common index procedures prior to S-HoLEP included transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (87, 40.1%), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) (44, 20.3%), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) (24, 11.1%) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) (24, 11.1%). Preoperative prostate volume, IPSS and Qmax were similar between groups. Intra-operatively, S-HoLEP had longer procedure and morcellation times (p = 0.01 and 0.007). Postoperatively, the S-HoLEP cohort had longer catheter duration and hospitalization (both p < 0.001). Postoperative Qmax, IPSS and 90-day complication rates were similar. On temporal analysis, minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) have become more prevalent as index procedures. CONCLUSION: S-HoLEP is safe and efficacious for patients requiring additional BPH surgical intervention. S-HoLEP patients had longer operative times and hospital stays but equivalent postoperative functional outcomes compared to P-HoLEP. As MIST mature and gain traction, it is expected that rates of S-HoLEP will continue to rise.
Authors: Roger L Sur; Amy E Krambeck; Tim Large; Seth K Bechis; David F Friedlander; Manoj Monga; Ryan S Hsi; Nicole L Miller; Ben H Chew; Dirk Lange; Bodo Knudsen; Michael W Sourial; Mitchell R Humphreys; Karen L Stern; Ojas Shah; Joel E Abbott; Garen Abedi Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Claus G Roehrborn; Jack Barkin; Steven N Gange; Neal D Shore; Jonathan L Giddens; Damien M Bolton; Barrett E Cowan; Anthony L Cantwell; Kevin T McVary; Alexis E Te; Shahram S Gholami; William G Moseley; Peter T Chin; William T Dowling; Sheldon J Freedman; Peter F Incze; K Scott Coffield; Sean Herron; Prem Rashid; Daniel B Rukstalis Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Surena F Matin; Phillip M Pierorazio; Nir Kleinmann; John L Gore; Ahmad Shabsigh; Brian Hu; Karim Chamie; Guilherme Godoy; Scott G Hubosky; Marcelino Rivera; Michael O'Donnell; Marcus Quek; Jay D Raman; John J Knoedler; Douglas Scherr; Christopher Weight; Alon Weizer; Michael Woods; Hristos Kaimakliotis; Angela B Smith; Jennifer Linehan; Jonathan Coleman; Mitchell R Humphreys; Raymond Pak; David Lifshitz; Michael Verni; Ifat Klein; Marina Konorty; Dalit Strauss-Ayali; Gil Hakim; Elyse Seltzer; Mark Schoenberg; Seth P Lerner Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Karthik Tanneru; Shiva Gautam; Daniel Norez; Jatinder Kumar; Muhammad Umar Alam; Shahriar Koocheckpour; K C Balaji; Costa Joseph Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.370