RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES AFTER MONOPOLAR VERSUS LASER ENDOSCOPIC ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE: A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE

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 (HoLEP) and thulium laser enucleation (ThuLEP).

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 six months after surgery which included the IPSS, Qmax, post-void residual volume, prostate volume, and sodium levels of all patients.

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 monopolar enucleation demonstrating 72, 76, and 96 minutes, respectively (p < 0.05). The mean catheterization time following laser EEPs was shorter than monopolar enucleation as shown by 31, 31, and 74 hours, respectively (p < 0.05). Hospital stay times of HoLEP and ThuLEP were shorter than monopolar enucleation demonstrated by 3.3, 3.4, and 7.9 days, respectively (p < 0.05). 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.

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.

Journal of endourology. 2018 Feb 12 [Epub ahead of print]

Dmitry Victorovich Enikeev, Petr Vitalievich Glybochko, Zhamshid Okhunov, Yuriy Gennadievich Alyaev, Leonid Mikhailovich Rapoport, Dmitry Tsarichenko, Mikhail Elikovich Enikeev, Nikolay Ivanovich Sorokin, Alim Mukhamedovich Dymov, Mark Sergeevich Taratkin

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Research Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health , Bolshaya Pirogovskaya street 2, building 1 , Moscow, Russian Federation , 119435 ; ., I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Research Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Moscow, Russian Federation ; ., University of California, Irvine, Urology , 333 City Boulevard, Suite 2100 , 333 City Boulevard, Suite 2100 , Orange, California, United States , 92868 ; ., I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Research Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Moscow, Russian Federation ; ., I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Research Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Moscow, Russian Federation ; ., I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Research Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Moscow, Russian Federation ; ., I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Research Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Moscow, Russian Federation ; ., I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Research Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Moscow, Russian Federation ; ., I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Research Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Moscow, Russian Federation ; ., I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Research Institute of Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Moscow, Russian Federation ; .

email news signup