Contemporary surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction: does there remain a place in the toolbox for TURP?

Abstract

Level of evidence: 5

Keywords

BPH benign prostatic obstruction bladder outlet obstruction TURP AEEP GLLP HoLEP TIND Rezum PAE PUL MIST

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Vos

, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380: 2163–2196.

Launer

McVary

Ricke

, et al. The rising worldwide impact of benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. Epub ahead of print 30 October 2020. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15286.

Hashim

Abrams

Transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic obstruction: will it remain the gold standard?

Eur Urol 2015; 67: 1097–1098.

Huang

Tsai

Tseng

, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of new surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2019; 397, l5919.

Rassweiler

Teber

Kuntz

, et al. Complications of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP)—Incidence, Management, and Prevention, Eur Urol 2006; 50: 969–980.

Gilfrich

May

Fahlenbrach

, et al. Surgical Reintervention rates after invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic syndrome: a comparative study of more than 43,000 patients with long-term followup. J Uro 2021; 205: 855–863.

Roos

, et al. Mortality and reoperation after open and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. New Eng J Med 1989; 320: 1120–1124.

Eredics

, et al. Reoperation rates and mortality after transurethral and open prostatectomy in a long-term nationwide analysis: have we improved over a decade? Urology 2018; 118: 152–157.

Johnston

, et al. The ‘Urological Stethoscope’: an essential aide for the modern benign prostatic hyperplasia specialist? BJU Int 2020; 125: 632–633.

10.

Srinivasan

Wang

An update on minimally invasive surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia: techniques, risks, and efficacy. World J Men’s Health 2020; 38: 402.

11.

Christidis

, et al. Minimally invasive surgical therapies for benign prostatic hypertrophy: the rise in minimally invasive surgical therapies. Prostate Int 2017; 5: 41–46.

12.

NeoTract

UroLift^®: FDA Cleared BPH Treatment for Enlarged Prostate, Urolift.com, https://www.urolift.com/ (2021, accessed 27 February 2021).

13.

iTind. BPH Treatment, https://www.itind.uk/ (2021, accessed 27 February 2021).

14.

Porpiglia

, et al. Temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND): a novel, minimally invasive treatment for relief of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): feasibility, safety and functional results at 1 year of follow-up, BJU Int 2015; 116: 278–287.

15.

Boston Scientific. Rezūm™ Water Vapour Therapy, https://www.bostonscientific.com/en-EU/products/lithotripsy/rezum-water-vapor-therapy.html (2021, accessed 27 February 2021).

16.

Roehrborn

, et al. Five-year results of the prospective randomized controlled prostatic urethral L.I.F.T. study. Can J Urol 2017; 24: 8802

17.

Perera

, et al. Prostatic urethral lift improves urinary symptoms and flow while preserving sexual function for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 704

18.

Porpiglia

, et al. 3-year follow-up of temporary implantable nitinol device implantation for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. BJU Int 2018; 122: 106–112

19.

Johnston

, et al. (2020) Rezum water vapour therapy: promising early outcomes from the first UK series. BJU Int 2020; 126: 557–558.

20.

McVary

Rogers

Roehrborn

Rezūm water vapor thermal therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from randomized controlled study. Urology 2019; 126: 171–179.

21.

Miller

, et al. Surgical reintervention rate after prostatic urethral lift: systematic review and meta-analysis involving over 2,000 patients. J Urol 2020; 204: 1019–1026.

22.

Thomas

, et al. A multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing GreenLight-XPS laser vaporization of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: two-year outcomes of the GOLIATH Study. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 94

23.

Al-Ansari

, et al. GreenLight HPS 120-W Laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with midterm follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 349–355.

24.

Thangasamy

, et al. (2012) Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate using 80-W and 120-W laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review with meta-analysis from 2002 to 2012. Eur Urol 62: 315–323.

25.

Zhou

, et al. Greenlight high-performance system (HPS) 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of the published results of randomized controlled trials, Lasers Med Sci 2016; 31: 485–495.

26.

Fraundorfer

Gilling

Holmium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol 1998; 33: 69–72.

27.

Vincent

Gilling

. HoLEP has come of age. World J Urol 2014; 33: 487–493.

28.

Aho

, et al. Anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: the next gold standard? Yes! Andrologia 2020; 52: e13643.

29.

Gómez-Sancha

The constant search for the greater good: evolving from TURP to anatomic enucleation of the prostate is a safe bet. World J Oncol. Epub ahead of print 24 February 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03637-1.

30.

Gravas

, et al. Management of non-neurogenic male LUTS, Arnhem: EAU Guidelines, EAU, 2021. Available at: http://uroweb.org/guideline/treatment-of-non-neurogenic-male-luts/

31.

Parsons

Dahm

Köhler

, et al. Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to Benign pro-static hyperplasia: AUA Guideline Amendment 2020. J Urol 2020; 204:799–804

32.

Yin

, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Endourol 2013; 27: 604–611.

33.

Tan

, et al. Meta-analysis of holmium laser enucleationversus transurethral resection of the prostate for symptomatic prostatic obstruction. Brit J Surg 2007; 94: 1201–1208.

34.

Cornu

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 1066–1096.

35.

Elshal

, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for treatment for large-sized benign prostate hyperplasia; is it a realistic endourologic alternative in developing country? World J Oncol 2015; 34: 399–405.

36.

Maoyin

, et al. Endoscopic enucleation versus open prostatectomy for treating large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0121265

37.

Lin

, et al. Transurethral enucleation of the prostate versus transvesical open prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Oncol 2015; 34: 1207–1219.

38.

Jones

, et al. Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol 2016; 14: 50–58.

39.

Lourenco

, et al. Alternative approaches to endoscopic ablation for benign enlargement of the prostate: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2008; 337: a449–a449

40.

Naspro

, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates >70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 563–568.

41.

Gomez Sancha

, et al. Common trend: move to enucleation – Is there a case for GreenLight enucleation? Development and description of the technique. World J Oncol 2014; 33: 539–547.

42.

Elshal

, et al. GreenLight™ Laser (XPS) photoselective vapo-enucleation versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled study. J Urol 2015; 193: 927–934.

43.

Misraï

, et al. Comparison between open simple prostatectomy and green laser enucleation of the prostate for treating large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single-centre experience. World J Oncol 2018; 36: 793–799.

44.

Xiao

, et al. Enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia thulium laser versus holmium laser: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci 2019; 34: 815–826.

45.

Hartung

Kowalewski

Hardenberg

, et al. (2021) Holmium Versus Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Eur Urol Focus. Epub ahead of print April 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.03.024.

46.

Wani

, et al. Is thulium laser enucleation of prostate an alternative to Holmium and TURP surgeries: a systematic review? Turkish J Urol 2020; 46: 419–426.

47.

Herrmann

Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation. World J Oncol 2016; 34: 1353–1355.

48.

Antunes

, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate simulation: analysis of realism and level of difficulty by holmium laser enucleation of the prostate-naïve urologists. Urology 2019; 125: 34–39.

49.

Aho

Herrmann

Description of a modular mentorship programme for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. World J Oncol 2014; 33: 497–502.

50.

Dell’Oglio

Goossens

Montorsi

, et al. Definition of a structured training curriculum for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020; 19: e1262–e1263.

51.

Sandhu

, et al. Photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy in men receiving anticoagulants. J Endourol 2005; 19: 1196–1198.

52.

Ruszat

, et al. Safety and effectiveness of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) in patients on ongoing oral anticoagulation. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 1031–1041.

53.

Chung

, et al. Outcomes and complications after 532 nm laser prostatectomy in anticoagulated patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2011; 186: 977–981.

54.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: management, Guidance and guidelines, NICE, https://www.nice.org.uk (2020).

55.

Elshal

, et al. Randomized trial of bipolar resection vs. holmium laser enucleation vs. Greenlight laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate for treatment of large sized benign prostate obstruction; 3-years outcomes. BJU Int. 2020; 126: 731–738.

56.

Malling

, et al. Prostate artery embolisation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2018; 29: 287–298.

57.

Abt

, et al. Comparison of prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial. BMJ 2018; 361: k2338

58.

Bhatia

, et al. Prostate artery embolization in patients with prostate volumes of 80 mL or more: a single-institution retrospective experience of 93 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29: 1392–1398.

59.

Abt

, et al. Prostatic artery embolisation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: 2-yr outcomes of a randomised, open-label, single-centre trial. Eur Urol. Epub ahead of print 19 February 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.02.008.

60.

Gondran-Tellier

, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgery for benign prostatic obstruction in patients with preoperative urinary catheter. J Endourol 2021; 35: 102–108.

61.

Mitchell

Mynderse

Lightner

, et al. Efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients with non-neurogenic impaired bladder contractility: results of a prospective trial. Urology 2014; 83: 428–432.

62.

Cho

, et al. Preoperative urinary retention increased the risk of urinary retention after photoselective vaporization of the prostate. World J Men’s Health 2015; 33: 182.

63.

Mottet

, et al. EAU – EANM – ESTRO – ESUR – ISUP – SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer, EAU Guidelines, EAU, Arnhem, http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/ (2020).