INJ Search

CLOSE


Int Neurourol J > Volume 25(3); 2021 > Article
Yu, Jeong, Jeon, Lee, and Lee: Comparison of Efficacy of Different Surgical Techniques for Benign Prostatic Obstruction

ABSTRACT

Purpose

We compared success rates of 3 surgical techniques (holmium laser enucleation of the prostate [HoLEP], transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP], and photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy [PVP]) for treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). We aimed to identify preoperative clinical variables and urodynamic parameters that predict surgical success.

Methods

A total of 483 patients who underwent surgical treatment for BPO at Samsung Medical Center between 2006 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed; of these 361, 81, and 41 patients underwent HoLEP, TURP, and PVP, respectively. Prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, urodynamic parameters, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)/quality of life (QoL) index were evaluated preoperatively; uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine, and IPSS/QoL index were measured 6 months postoperatively. Surgical success was defined based on IPSS, maximum flow rate, and QoL index and predictive factors were identified using multiple logistic regression analyses.

Results

Success rates of HoLEP, TURP, and PVP were 67.6%, 65.4%, and 34.1%, respectively, and the HoLEP and TURP groups were not significantly different. Regression analysis revealed prostate volume ≥50 mL and bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOI) ≥40 to be independent factors predicting HoLEP success. Only high preoperative QoL could predict the success of TURP, whereas other urodynamic parameters remained unrelated.

Conclusions

Patients treated with HoLEP and TURP displayed equivalent efficacies, but PVP was relatively less efficient than both. Preoperative variables of prostate volume ≥50 mL and BOOI ≥40 were independent predictive factors for the success of HoLEP but not of TURP.

INTRODUCTION

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a histological diagnosis referring to the proliferation of smooth muscle and epithelial cells within the prostatic transition zone. In aging males, the histological prevalence of BPH increases at 40 years of age, reaching 60% at 60 years and 80% at 80 years [1]. In some cases, BPH leads to benign prostatic enlargement, which may eventually cause a benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to BPO are also common in aging males, with approximately three-quarters of the male population suffering from this condition by the age of 70 years [2]. Furthermore, LUTS have a significant impact on the quality of life (QoL) in terms of interruptions to daily living, work productivity, and even psychological well-being [3,4].
Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), a practice established in the 1930s, is traditionally accepted as the gold standard of surgical treatment for BPO. The advent of the laser in the 1990s has led to this historical standard being repeatedly challenged by a variety of new surgical methods [5]. Until the 2000s, TURP was still used an effective treatment, but its use has now decreased and the use of lasers for BPO treatment has significantly increased [6].
Usage of a laser for BPO treatment involves tissue coagulation or vaporization for debulking of prostatic tissue. Photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy (PVP) uses a high power laser to instantly evaporate tissue and create a large cavity, as in TURP [7]. Another technique, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), uses a holmium laser to enucleate the prostatic adenoma from the surgical capsule in a manner similar to that of open prostatectomy.
Here, we investigated the efficacies of TURP, HoLEP, and PVP based on estimated criteria, specifically Homma criteria, for treatment efficacy [8]. We evaluated the efficacy of treatment based on patient characteristics such as prostate volume and urodynamic parameters. Finally, we evaluated preoperative factors predictive of successful TURP and HoLEP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient Population and Assessment

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Samsung Medical Center (approval number: SMC 2020-05-003-001). Informed consent was waived by the IRB. Between January 2006 and December 2017, 773 patients underwent TURP, HoLEP, or PVP for the treatment of BPO at our institution. Patients with preoperative urodynamic study (UDS) data were included and those with insufficient data, postoperative diagnosis of prostate cancer, or previous surgical treatment for BPO were excluded. Finally, we analyzed 483 patients with more than 6 months of follow-up data.
All patients underwent initial clinical evaluations such as recording of medical history and physical examination, including digital rectal examination, and were scored using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Demographic data included age, prostate volume, and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. Body mass index (BMI) was available only for patients who underwent TURP or HoLEP. Patients were preoperatively assessed using transrectal ultrasound and UDS. UDS was performed as per International Continence Society recommendations [9]. Urodynamic parameters including maximal cystometric capacity, maximum flow rate (Qmax), and detrusor pressure at Qmax (PdetQmax) were recorded. Calculations of bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOI; BOOI=PdetQmax− 2Qmax) and bladder contractility index (BCI; BCI=PdetQmax+ 5Qmax) were performed [10]. BOOI ≥40 was defined as bladder outlet obstruction, and BCI <100 was defined as weak bladder contractility. Detrusor overactivity (DO) is a urodynamic variable characterized by involuntary detrusor contractions during the bladder filling phase.
The operation duration was recorded for all patients, along with resected tissue weight and resection portion (resected weight/preoperative prostate volume [%]) for patients who underwent TURP or HoLEP. Six months after surgery, all patients were assessed using IPSS and uroflowmetry with postvoid residual urine (PVR). The complications associated with the operations were assessed, and medications for storage symptoms (anticholinergics or beta-adrenergic agonists) were also recorded.

Operative Technique

TURP was performed as per standard techniques using a 26F continuous flow resectoscope (Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany). Resection was performed using a standard tungsten wire loop with a mono-polar cutting current of 120 W and coagulating current of 80 W. HoLEP was performed as described by Gilling, with some modifications [11]. After dividing the prostate into anatomical lobes, enucleation of each lobe was performed in a retrograde fashion using a high-powered holmium laser (80–100 W), delivered by a SlimLine 550-mm fiber (Lumenis, Inc., Yokneam, Israel) through the 26F continuous flow resectoscope system. For tissue morcellation and retrieval, we used a 26F nephroscope with a VersaCut Tissue Morcellator (Lumenis, Inc.). PVP was performed using an 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser delivered by a GreenLight system (GreenLight PV; Laserscope, San Jose, CA, USA). The laser was delivered through a 600-µm side-deflecting fiber. A standard 23F continuous flow resectoscope with a laser bridge was used for this procedure and sterile 0.9% saline solution for irrigation.
TURP and HoLEP were performed on hospitalized patients and PVP was performed in the day-surgery center. In the TURP and HoLEP groups, the urethral catheter was removed on the day urine became sufficiently clear and in the PVP group, on the first postoperative day.

Estimating Efficacy of Surgery

The definition of treatment success was based on criteria developed by Homma et al. [8], who presented 4 domains constituting efficacy of BPO treatment: symptoms, function, anatomy, and QoL. The domains were evaluated based on 4 variables: IPSS, Qmax, prostate volume, and QoL index. Overall efficacy was defined as median efficacy grades of the symptoms, function, and QoL domains. Efficacy grades (excellent, good, fair, and poor) for each domain have been summarized in Table 1. Treatment was considered successful if overall efficacy demonstrated excellent or good grade.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were presented as mean±standard deviation. Student t-test or 1-way analysis of variance was used for continuous variables, and chi-square test for categorical variables. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed using preoperative urodynamic parameters and other relevant clinical variables to identify predictive factors for the success of TURP or HoLEP. Prostate volume with maximum Youden index was used as a cutoff for predicting surgical success. These analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 21.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). Statistical calculations, scatterplot displays with least-squares regression line, and 95% confidence intervals for the slope were performed using Rex (Version 3.3.0, RexSoft Inc., Seoul, Korea), a user interface for R (https://www.r-project.org/). All P-values were 2-tailed, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

We analyzed 361, 81, and 41 patients who underwent HoLEP, TURP, and PVP, respectively. Table 2 lists the preoperative baseline characteristics. Patients treated with HoLEP had larger prostate volumes than those treated with TURP or PVP (HoLEP vs. TURP, P=0.004; HoLEP vs. PVP, P<0.001). However, the IPSS and QoL index were comparable across all 3 groups. The proportion of patients with bladder outlet obstruction was significantly smaller in the PVP group, with only 34.1% (14 patients) having BOOI ≥40. The proportion of patients with bladder outlet obstruction in the HoLEP and TURP groups was 62.3% (225 patients) and 72.8% (59 patients), respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (P=0.074).
In terms of perioperative and postoperative parameters, the mean operation duration was significantly shorter in the PVP group than in the HoLEP and TURP groups (P<0.001) (Table 3), with no significant difference between the HoLEP and TURP groups (63 minutes vs. 62 minutes, P=0.784). Both resected tissue weight and resection portion were higher in the HoLEP group than in the TURP group. PVP was significantly poorer for most outcomes (IPSS, QoL index, and Qmax, but not PVR). Between the HoLEP and TURP groups, Qmax was significantly higher in the HoLEP group (19.8 mL/sec vs. 14.8 mL/sec, P<0.001) whereas other outcomes were comparable.
Table 4 shows the operation outcomes for each domain based on the estimation criteria and Fig. 1 shows preoperative and postoperative changes in the 3 estimation domains. Patients treated with PVP showed significantly lower improvement in the symptom and function domains than those treated with HoLEP or TURP (P=0.001, P<0.001, respectively). The HoLEP group showed significantly more improvement in the function domain than the TURP group (P<0.001). Overall, the success rates of the operations were 67.6%, 65.4%, and 34.1% in HoLEP, TURP, and PVP groups, respectively. The success rate was comparable between the HoLEP and TURP groups (P=0.709), but the PVP group was significantly lower than both groups (P<0.001).
In the HoLEP group, patients who underwent successful surgery were younger (P=0.003), had lower BMI (P=0.019), higher preoperative PSA levels (P=0.001), and greater prostate volumes (P=0.002) (Table 5). Among the preoperative urodynamic parameters, Qmax (P=0.001), BOOI, and BCI (P<0.001) were higher in patients with successful outcomes. In the TURP group, preoperative IPSS (P=0.021) and QoL index (P=0.004) were higher in patients who underwent successful surgeries (Table 5). However, there was no difference in other urodynamic parameters.
Upon performing multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify predictive factors for the successful operations (Table 6), prostate volume ≥50 mL and BOOI ≥40 were found to be independent predictive factors for success of HoLEP (odds ratio, 2.958 and 2.088; 95% confidence interval, 1.710–5.116 and 1.239–3.518; P<0.001 and P=0.006, respectively). However, only high preoperative QoL index was associated with success of TURP (odds ratio, 1.628; 95% confidence interval, 1.039–2.550; P=0.033).
Fig. 2 shows that the trend lines of prostate volume and BOOI in the HoLEP group to be distinctly different depending on success rates, but it is not so for the TURP group. Fig. 3A shows the success rates of HoLEP and TURP for different ranges of prostate volume. Although the success rates of HoLEP and TURP were comparable for patients with prostate volumes less than 50 cc (P=0.152), the success rate of HoLEP was significantly higher for patients with prostate volumes ranging from 50 mL to 100 mL than for the TURP (79.7% vs. 63.2%, P=0.030). Fig. 3B shows the success rates of HoLEP and TURP depending on the presence or absence of bladder outlet obstruction according to BOOI. There was no difference between the success rate of HoLEP and TURP with or without bladder outlet obstruction (P=0.838 and P=0.241, respectively).
In terms of postoperative complications, bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture occurred in 0.8% (3 patients) of the HoLEP group, 2.5% (2 patients) of the TURP group. Stress urinary incontinence after operation occurred only in the HoLEP group, with 15 patients (4.2%) reporting urine leakage at 6 months after the operation. No complications were reported in the PVP group. Among all patients, a total of 59 patients (12.2%) took anticholinergics or beta-adrenergic agonists at 6 months after the operations. Of 235 patients who preoperatively reported DO, 39 patients (16.6%) took anticholinergics or beta-adrenergic agonists. In contrast, of 207 patients without DO, significantly fewer patients 17 (8.2%) took medications for his storage symptoms (P=0.008).

DISCUSSION

Among the elderly, BPO represents the most prevalent nonmalignant genitourinary condition facing contemporary urologists. TURP has long been considered the standard treatment option for BPO patients who require surgical intervention. Many other alternatives have been investigated after the introduction of lasers in the field, allowing the development of minimally invasive techniques and reducing the risks of the TURP such as bleeding and transurethral resection syndrome [5,12,13].
We compared the success rates of 3 surgical techniques (TURP, HoLEP, and PVP) and investigated potential preoperative clinical factors and urodynamic parameters affecting surgical success. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing 3 surgical techniques simultaneously performed in one institution, and predicting their respective success rates using urodynamic parameters.
It was necessary to evaluate surgical success, or lack thereof, using subjective symptoms (IPSS/QoL) and objective indicators (uroflowmetry). We utilized criteria outlined by Homma et al. [8], who established 4 domains for efficacy evaluation: symptom, function, anatomy, and QoL. They defined overall efficacy as the median grade of the symptoms, function, and QoL domains. They reported that the dichotomous evaluation of success using these criteria and the agreement rate with judgments of physicians with over 15 years of clinical experience in BPO treatments was approximately 80%.
Based on the criteria, the surgery success rate was significantly lower in the PVP group than in the HoLEP and TURP groups, with no significant differences between the HoLEP and TURP groups. Specifically, we confirmed that among the estimated domains the functional improvement of Qmax was greater in the HoLEP group compared to TURP group. When identifying factors predictive of surgical success in the HoLEP group, prostate volume ≥50 mL and BOOI ≥40 were found to be independent predictors. However, in the TURP group, only a high baseline QoL, and no other urodynamic parameters, could predict surgical success. Furthermore, the success rate of HoLEP was significantly higher for patients with prostate volumes ranging from 50 mL to 100 mL than for the TURP.
There were significant differences in the age and prostate volumes of patients among the 3 surgical techniques. However, IPSS and QoL index did not differ among the 3 groups. We proceed with the assumption that age and prostate volume are used as the basis of judgment rather than subjective symptoms when clinicians determining the type of surgery. Tae et al. [14] described the successful treatment of patients with prostates larger than 100 mL using HoLEP, which was reported to provide a satisfactory outcome in patients with prostate gland larger than 175 mL with low morbidity [15].
Comparative studies, including randomized controlled trials, comparing TURP to HoLEP or PVP have been summarized in Table 7 [16-20]. According to these studies, PVP is considered to be similar to or worse than TURP in terms of efficacy. A 5-year prospective study has reported PVP to have a higher risk of reoperation due to recurrent adenoma [21]. Also, as per these studies, HoLEP is equivalent to or more efficient than TURP. Notably, previous studies have reported that the operation duration is significantly longer for HoLEP than for TURP. However, in our study, the operation duration was not significantly different between the 2 surgical techniques. It may be because we analyzed more recent procedures, that is, since the introduction of HoLEP in our institution, the surgeons at our hospital have earned much experience in the procedure and gained the technical abilities to shorten the operation duration. Especially HoLEP is known to have a steep learning curve, even with the prospective training structure of a multicenter study, it has been reported that half of the centers did not overcome this learning curve and abandoned HoLEP as a technique [22]. In particular, difficulty in enucleation of the adenoma was difficult for beginners, and delays at this step have been reported to prolong the operation duration [23].
Previous reports have investigated predictors of surgical success for BPO, but the results have not been consistent. Our institution has reported that the improvement of IPSS after TURP in patients with preoperative weak bladder contractility (BCI < 100) is significantly low [24]. Some studies have suggested that the degree of preoperative bladder outlet obstruction does not significantly affect the efficacy of TURP [25]. On the contrary, others have reported that the efficacy of TURP improves as the preoperative degree of bladder outlet obstruction worsens [26,27]. Seki et al. [28] analyzed 384 BPO patients 1 year after TURP and reported that a severe preoperative bladder outlet obstruction positively predicted postoperative improvement in IPSS and QoL. In our study, preoperative variables of prostate volume ≥50 mL and BOOI ≥40 are independent predictive factors for the success of HoLEP. In contrast, only a high preoperative QoL index, and no other urodynamic parameter, could predict the success of TURP. Further analyses of predictive factors revealed that the trend lines of prostate volume and BOOI distinctly differed depending on success in the HoLEP group. In the TURP group, however, they showed no differences for each of the variables.
There was no difference in the success rate of each operation as per the baseline DO, but there was a statistically significant difference in whether or not a medication for storage symptoms (anticholinergics or beta-adrenergic agonists) was taken 6 months after the operation. As is well known, an overactive bladder may be the result of DO, which develops secondary to BPO. Although several reports revealed the storage symptoms improved significantly in both groups, a significant number of patients with DO reported taking anticholinergics after HoLEP [29,30].
This study has several limitations because it was performed with a retrospective design, possibly leading to selection bias. In addition, the possibility of residual confounding variables cannot be ruled out. The preoperative prostate volume was higher in the HoLEP group than in the TURP and PVP groups. Also, the proportion of patients with BOOI ≥40 was higher in the HoLEP group than in the PVP group. However, the proportions of patients with prostate volume ≥50 mL and BOOI ≥40 were comparable between the HoLEP and TURP groups. Additionally, the number of patients in the TURP and PVP groups was much smaller than that in the HoLEP group. We included patients with preoperative UDS and more than 6 months of follow-up data. Although the number of patients in the TURP and PVP groups was small, the data regarding the procedures are valuable references for evaluating operation outcomes.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that HoLEP is as efficient as TURP and that PVP is relatively less efficient than both TURP and HoLEP. Preoperative variables of prostate volume ≥50 mL and BOOI ≥40 are independent predictive factors for the success of HoLEP, but not of TURP. HoLEP may be more successful than TURP in patients with a prostate volume of 50 to 100 mL.

NOTES

Research Ethics
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Samsung Medical Center (approval number: SMC 2020-05-003-001). Informed consent was waived by the IRB.
Conflict of Interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT
·Conceptualization: JY, BCJ, SSJ, SWL, KSL
·Data curation: JY
·Formal analysis: JY
·Methodology: KSL
·Project administration: KSL
·Writing-original draft: JY
·Writing-review & editing: BCJ, SSJ, KSL

REFERENCES

1. Mazur DJ, Helfand BT, McVary KT. Influences of neuroregulatory factors on the development of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia and erectile dysfunction in aging men. Urol Clin North Am 2012;39:77-88. PMID: 22118347
crossref pmid
2. Platz EA, Smit E, Curhan GC, Nyberg LM, Giovannucci E. Prevalence of and racial/ethnic variation in lower urinary tract symptoms and noncancer prostate surgery in U.S. men. Urology 2002;59:877-83. PMID: 12031373
crossref pmid
3. Kim KS, Jo JK, Lee JA, Choi BY, Moon HS. Do lifestyle factors affect lower urinary tract symptoms? Results from the Korean community health survey. Int Neurourol J 2019;23:125-35. PMID: 31260612
crossref pmid pmc
4. Lee YS, Lee KS, Jung JH, Han DH, Oh SJ, Seo JT, et al. Prevalence of overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, and lower urinary tract symptoms: results of Korean EPIC study. World J Urol 2011;29:185-90. PMID: 19898824
crossref pmid
5. Puppo P. New technologies for the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy: bases for change. J Urol (Paris) 1993;99:360-1. PMID: 7516391
pmid
6. Jeon BJ, Chung H, Bae JH, Jung H, Lee JG, Choi H. Analysis of present status for surgery of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Korea using nationwide healthcare system data. Int Neurourol J 2019;23:22-9. PMID: 30943691
crossref pmid pmc
7. Kuntzman RS, Malek RS, Barrett DM, Bostwick DG. Potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vaporization of the prostate: a comparative functional and pathologic study in canines. Urology 1996;48:575-83. PMID: 8886063
crossref pmid
8. Homma Y, Kawabe K, Tsukamoto T, Yamaguchi O, Okada K, Aso Y, et al. Estimate criteria for efficacy of treatment in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int J Urol 1996;3:267-73. PMID: 8844281
crossref pmid
9. Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, Mattiasson A, Pesce F, Spangberg A, et al. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:261-74. PMID: 11948720
crossref pmid
10. Abrams P. Bladder outlet obstruction index, bladder contractility index and bladder voiding efficiency: three simple indices to define bladder voiding function. BJU Int 1999;84:14-5. PMID: 10444116
crossref pmid
11. Gilling P. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). BJU Int 2008;101:131-42. PMID: 18086107
crossref pmid
12. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)--incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 2006;50:969-79 discussion 80. PMID: 16469429
crossref pmid
13. McNicholas TA, Singh S. The use of lasers in benign prostatic enlargement. Curr Urol Rep 2000;1:124-31. PMID: 12084326
crossref pmid
14. Tae BS, Jeon BJ, Choi H, Park JY, Bae JH. A novel technique of morcellation using a pneumovesicum after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in complicated situations: our initial experience and tips. Int Neurourol J 2019;23:46-55. PMID: 30943694
crossref pmid pmc
15. Krambeck AE, Handa SE, Lingeman JE. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for prostates larger than 175 grams. J Endourol 2010;24:433-7. PMID: 19852722
crossref pmid
16. Kuntz RM, Ahyai S, Lehrich K, Fayad A. Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 patients. J Urol 2004;172:1012-6. PMID: 15311026
crossref pmid
17. Tan AH, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, Frampton C, Westenberg AM, Fraundorfer MR. A randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in large glands (40 to 200 grams). J Urol 2003;170:1270-4. PMID: 14501739
crossref pmid
18. Montorsi F, Naspro R, Salonia A, Suardi N, Briganti A, Zanoni M, et al. Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results from a 2-center prospective randomized trial in patients with obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2008;179:S87-90. PMID: 18405765
crossref pmid
19. Bouchier-Hayes DM, Van Appledorn S, Bugeja P, Crowe H, Challacombe B, Costello AJ. A randomized trial of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vs transurethral prostatectomy, with a 1-year follow-up. BJU Int 2010;105:964-9. PMID: 19912196
crossref pmid
20. Han DH, Choo SH, Chung JW, Hong JH, Lee SW. Can 80 W KTP laser vaporization effectively relieve the obstruction in benign prostatic hyperplasia? A nonrandomized trial. World J Mens Health 2012;30:160-5. PMID: 23596606
crossref pmid pmc
21. Guo S, Muller G, Lehmann K, Talimi S, Bonkat G, Puschel H, et al. The 80-W KTP GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): adjusted analysis of 5-year results of a prospective non-randomized bi-center study. Lasers Med Sci 2015;30:1147-51. PMID: 25698433
crossref pmid
22. Robert G, Cornu JN, Fourmarier M, Saussine C, Descazeaud A, Azzouzi AR, et al. Multicentre prospective evaluation of the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). BJU Int 2016;117:495-9. PMID: 25781490
crossref pmid
23. Seki N, Mochida O, Kinukawa N, Sagiyama K, Naito S. Holmium laser enucleation for prostatic adenoma: analysis of learning curve over the course of 70 consecutive cases. J Urol 2003;170:1847-50. PMID: 14532790
crossref pmid
24. Han DH, Jeong YS, Choo MS, Lee KS. The efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate in the patients with weak bladder contractility index. Urology 2008;71:657-61. PMID: 18313105
crossref pmid
25. van Venrooij GE, van Melick HH, Eckhardt MD, Boon TA. Correlations of urodynamic changes with changes in symptoms and well-being after transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol 2002;168:605-9. PMID: 12131318
crossref pmid
26. van Venrooij GE, van Melick HH, Boon TA. Comparison of outcomes of transurethral prostate resection in urodynamicallyobstructed versus selected urodynamicallyunobstructed or equivocal men. Urology 2003;62:672-6. PMID: 14550441
crossref pmid
27. Tanaka Y, Masumori N, Itoh N, Furuya S, Ogura H, Tsukamoto T. Is the short-term outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate affected by preoperative degree of bladder outlet obstruction, status of detrusor contractility or detrusor overactivity? Int J Urol 2006;13:1398-404. PMID: 17083391
crossref pmid
28. Seki N, Kai N, Seguchi H, Takei M, Yamaguchi A, Naito S. Predictives regarding outcome after transurethral resection for prostatic adenoma associated with detrusor underactivity. Urology 2006;67:306-10. PMID: 16461081
crossref pmid
29. Cho MC, Song WH, Park J, Cho SY, Jeong H, Oh SJ, et al. Long-term outcomes of laser prostatectomy for storage symptoms: comparison of serial 5-year followup data between high performance system photoselective vaporization and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. J Urol 2018;199:1591-9. PMID: 29329895
crossref pmid
30. Jeong J, Lee HS, Cho WJ, Jung W, You HW, Kim TH, et al. Effect of detrusor overactivity on functional outcomes after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic obstruction. Urology 2015;86:133-8. PMID: 25991576
crossref pmid

Fig. 1.
Comparing calculated values of surgical outcome for each domain. IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; Qmax, maximum flow rate; HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; PVP, photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy. Only statistically significant comparisons are marked with P-values.
inj-2040314-157f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Scatterplot of prostate volume and BOOI as per the operations. Blue circles represent patients with successful outcomes. Red crosses represent patients with unsuccessful outcomes. Blue and red curves represent the least-squares regression lines with 95% confidence intervals for the slope in the patients with successful outcomes and unsuccessful outcomes, respectively. HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; BOOI, bladder outlet obstruction index.
inj-2040314-157f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
(A) The success rate of HoLEP and TURP for different ranges of prostate volume. (B) The success rates of HoLEP and TURP depending on the presence or absence of bladder outlet obstruction according to BOOI. HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; BOOI, bladder outlet obstruction index.
inj-2040314-157f3.jpg
Table 1.
Criteria for determining the efficacy of individual domains and proportion of patients for each efficacy grade
Domain Value
Symptom (Post/Pre ratio of IPSS)
 Excellent ≤ 0.25
 Good ≤ 0.50
 Fair ≤ 0.75
 Poor > 0.75
QoL (Pre-Post ratio of QoL index)
 Excellent ≥4
 Good 3
 Fair 2, 1
 Poor ≤0
Function (Post-Pre ratio of Qmax)
 Excellent ≥ 10
 Good ≥5
 Fair ≥ 2.5
 Poor < 2.5

Pre, preoperative; Post, postoperative; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; Qmax, maximum flow rate.

Table 2.
Preoperative baseline characteristics
Characteristic HoLEP (n = 361) TURP (n = 81) PVP (n = 41) P-value
HoLEP vs. TURP TURP vs. PVP HoLEP vs. PVP
Demographic data
Age (yr) 69.2 ± 7.4 65.6 ± 6.4 67.0 ± 6.4 < 0.001 0.243 0.074
BMI (kg/m2) (n = 442) 24.5 ± 2.8 24.8 ± 2.7 - 0.405 -
PSA (ng/mL) 4.1 ± 5.0 3.4 ± 3.8 1.7 ± 1.6 0.222 0.001 < 0.001
Prostate volume (mL) 63.4 ± 32.9 52.4 ± 23.2 32.0 ± 13.0 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
 ≥ 50 200 (55.4) 40 (49.4) 4 (9.8) 0.326 < 0.001 < 0.001
IPSS total 22.3 ± 7.0 22.1 ± 8.2 22.2 ± 7.6 0.821 0.950 0.929
 IPSS ≥ 20 242 (67.0) 51 (63.0) 26 (63.4) 0.483 0.961 0.641
 Storage 8.8 ± 3.3 9.1 ± 3.6 9.3 ± 3.9 0.453 0.799 0.444
 Voiding 13.5 ± 4.8 13.0 ± 5.2 12.9 ± 4.8 0.395 0.930 0.452
QoL index 4.3 ± 1.0 4.4 ± 1.3 4.5 ± 1.2 0.487 0.678 0.219
Urodynamic parameters
MCC (mL) 370.2 ± 103.5 371.7 ± 90.5 386.8 ± 97.9 0.904 0.401 0.329
Qmax (mL/sec) 8.0 ± 3.8 9.0 ± 3.6 9.7 ± 3.5 0.026 0.317 0.006
PVR (mL) 118.3 ± 124.6 100.4 ± 100.6 82.5 ± 69.7 0.229 0.312 0.006
BOOI 54.8 ± 31.6 55.8 ± 26.0 37.9 ± 17.6 0.784 < 0.001 < 0.001
 BOOI ≥ 40 225 (62.3) 59 (72.8) 14 (34.1) 0.074 < 0.001 < 0.001
BCI 106.4 ± 35.6 113.9 ± 28.3 93.9 ± 27.0 0.042 < 0.001 0.009
 BCI < 100 170 (47.1) 28 (34.6) 27 (65.9) 0.041 0.001 0.023
DO 190 (52.6) 45 (55.6) 8 (43.9) 0.634 0.224 0.289

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; PVP, photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy; BMI, body mass index; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; MCC, maximal cystometric capacity; Qmax, maximum flow rate; PVR, postvoid residual urine; BOOI, bladder outlet obstruction index; BCI, bladder contractility index; DO, detrusor overactivity.

Table 3.
Perioperative and postoperative parameters
Parameter HoLEP (n=361) TURP (n=81) PVP (n=41) P-value
HoLEP vs. TURP TURP vs. PVP HoLEP vs. PVP
Operation duration (min) 62.9 ± 34.3 61.7 ± 37.6 38.8 ± 16.6 0.784 < 0.001 < 0.001
Resection weight (g) 24.1 ± 21.1 15.6 ± 12.3 - < 0.001
Resection portion (%) 34.2 ± 16.7 28.1 ± 14.8 - 0.003
IPSS 8.5 ± 7.3 8.1 ± 6.6 13.5 ± 8.3 0.663 < 0.001 < 0.001
 Storage 4.6 ± 3.1 4.6 ± 3.0 6.4 ± 3.4 0.922 0.004 < 0.001
 Voiding 3.9 ± 4.9 3.5 ± 4.4 7.1 ± 5.4 0.476 < 0.001 < 0.001
QoL index 1.9 ± 1.5 1.8 ± 1.4 2.8 ± 1.5 0.532 < 0.001 0.001
Qmax (mL/sec) 19.8 ± 10.2 14.8 ± 7.5 12.0 ± 7.8 < 0.001 0.050 < 0.001
PVR (mL) 32.7 ± 43.8 38.8 ± 48.7 48.2 ± 66.9 0.263 0.292 0.154

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; PVP, photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; Qmax, maximum flow rate; PVR, postvoid residual urine.

Table 4.
The outcomes of operations for each estimation domain at 6 months after the operations
Domain HoLEP (n = 361) TURP (n = 81) PVP (n = 41) P-value
HoLEP vs. TURP TURP vs. PVP HoLEP vs. PVP
Symptom 0.926 0.001 < 0.001
 Excellent 162 (44.9) 36 (44.4) 4 (9.8)
 Good 104 (28.8) 25 (30.9) 17 (41.5)
 Fair 41 (11.4) 10 (12.3) 6 (14.6)
 Poor 54 (15.1) 10 (12.3) 14 (34.1)
QoL index 0.671 0.051 0.081
 Excellent 103 (28.5) 28 (34.6) 9 (22.0)
 Good 74 (20.5) 17 (21.0) 5 (12.2)
 Fair 137 (38.0) 28 (34.6) 16 (39.0)
 Poor 47 (13.0) 8 (9.9) 11 (26.8)
Function < 0.001 0.146 < 0.001
 Excellent 191 (52.9) 24 (29.6) 5 (12.2)
 Good 66 (18.3) 13 (16.0) 6 (14.6)
 Fair 36 (10.0) 11 (13.6) 6 (14.6)
 Poor 68 (18.8) 33 (40.7) 24 (58.5)
 Success 244 (67.6) 53 (65.4) 14 (34.1) 0.709 0.001 < 0.001

Values are presented as number (%).

HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; PVP, photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy; QoL, quality of life.

Table 5.
Comparison of preoperative variables based on the surgical success of HoLEP
Variable HoLEP
TURP
Unsuccessful (n=117) Successful (n=244) P-value Unsuccessful (n = 28) Successful (n = 53) P-value
Demographic data
Age (yr) 70.8 ± 7.6 68.4 ± 7.2 0.003 64.1 ± 6.4 66.3 ± 6.2 0.143
BMI (kg/m2) 25.0 ± 2.9 24.3 ± 2.8 0.019 25.5 ± 2.6 24.5 ± 2.7 0.093
PSA (ng/dL) 2.9 ± 4.2 4.7 ± 5.3 0.001 2.4 ± 1.6 3.9 ± 4.5 0.035
Prostate volume (mL) 55.6 ± 35.7 67.2 ± 30.8 0.002 50.8 ± 20.7 53.2 ± 24.5 0.660
 ≥ 50 42 (35.9) 158 (64.8) < 0.001 14 (50.0) 26 (49.1) 0.936
IPSS total 22.4 ± 7.1 22.3 ± 7.0 0.848 19.3 ± 9.2 23.6 ± 7.2 0.021
 IPSS ≥ 20 80 (68.4) 162 (66.4) 0.708 15 (53.6) 36 (67.9) 0.203
Storage 9.3 ± 3.2 8.6 ± 3.3 0.091 8.0 ± 4.1 9.8 ± 3.2 0.033
 Voiding 13.2 ± 4.9 13.6 ± 4.7 0.383 11.3 ± 5.7 13.9 ± 4.7 0.033
 QoL index 4.3 ± 1.1 4.4 ± 1.0 0.476 3.9 ± 1.5 4.7 ± 1.2 0.004
Urodynamic parameters
MCC (mL) 363.9 ± 89.0 373.2 ± 109.8 0.425 369.0 ± 77.7 373.2 ± 97.4 0.845
Qmax (mL/sec) 9.0 ± 4.0 7.5 ± 3.7 0.001 9.8 ± 3.5 8.6 ± 3.6 0.186
PVR (mL) 103.2 ± 107.3 125.6 ± 131.7 0.111 91.8 ± 112.3 105.0 ± 94.6 0.579
BOOI 42.4 ± 21.9 60.8 ± 33.8 < 0.001 49.9 ± 24.7 59.0 ± 26.4 0.135
 BOOI ≥ 40 52 (44.4) 173 (70.9) < 0.001 18 (64.3) 41 (77.4) 0.208
BCI 95.1 ± 33.1 111.9 ± 35.5 < 0.001 108.5 ± 27.4 116.8 ± 28.6 0.214
 BCI < 100 68 (58.1) 102 (41.8) 0.004 13 (46.4) 15 (28.3) 0.103
DO 57 (48.7) 133 (54.5) 0.302 13 (46.4) 32 (60.4) 0.230

HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; BMI, body mass index; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; MCC, maximal cystometric capacity; Qmax, maximum flow rate; PVR, postvoid residual urine; BOOI, bladder outlet obstruction index; BCI, bladder contractility index; DO, detrusor overactivity.

Table 6.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors influencing success of the operation
Variable HoLEP
TURP
OR (95% CI) P-value OR (95% CI) P-value
Age 0.952 (0.919–0.986) 0.006 1.067 (0.972–1.171) 0.173
BMI 0.917 (0.838–1.004) 0.060 0.912 (0.741–1.124) 0.912
PSA 1.016 (0.951–1.084) 0.644 1.136 (0.892–1.447) 0.301
IPSS ≥ 20 0.753 (0.415–1.366) 0.35 1.430 (0.412–4.957) 0.573
QoL index 1.111 (0.849–1.455) 0.441 1.628 (1.039–2.550) 0.033
Prostate volume
 < 50 Reference Reference
 ≥ 50 2.958 (1.710–5.116) < 0.001 0.416 (0.121–1.429) 0.164
BOOI ≥ 40 2.088 (1.239–3.518) 0.006 0.590 (0.158–2.200) 0.432
BCI < 100 0.817 (0.478–1.397) 0.460 0.344 (0.096–1.240) 0.103
DO 0.974 (0.574–1.650) 0.921 1.070 (0.332–3.452) 0.910

HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; BMI, body mass index; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; BOOI, bladder outlet obstruction index; BCI, bladder contractility index; DO, detrusor overactivity.

Table 7.
Manuscripts that address the surgical outcomes at 6 months after the operations
Study IPSS QoL index Qmax (mL/sec) Resection weight (g) Operation duration (min)
HoLEP vs. TURP
Kuntz et al. [16] (n = 200) 2.2 vs. 3.7, P = 0.006 - 25.1 vs. 25.1, P = 0.72 33 vs. 37, P = 0.17 94.6 vs. 73.8, P < 0.0001
Tan et al. [17] (n = 61) 6.0 vs. 4.8 1.6 vs. 1.5 26.4 vs. 20.8 40.4 vs. 24.7, P < 0.05 -
Montorsi et al. [18] (n = 100) 3.9 vs. 2.9, P = 0.72 1.0 vs. 0.6, P = 0.25 23.1 vs. 26.5, P = 0.007 36.1 vs. 25.4, P < 0.05 74 vs. 57, P < 0.05
Current study 8.5 vs. 8.1, P = 0.663 1.9 vs. 1.8, P = 0.532 19.8 vs. 14.8, P < 0.001 24.1 vs. 15.6, P < 0.001 62.9 vs. 61.7, P = 0.784
TURP vs. PVP
Bouchier-Hayes et al. [19] (n = 120) 11.7 vs. 11.2, P > 0.05 2.2 vs. 2.0, P > 0.05 17.3 vs. 20.4, P < 0.05 - -
Han et al. [20] (n = 67) 6.8 vs. 10.8, P = 0.228 2.1 vs. 2.2, P = 0.859 15.3 vs. 16.0, P = 0.473 - -
Current study 8.5 vs. 13.5, P < 0.001 1.9 vs. 2.8, P = 0.001 19.8 vs. 12.0, P < 0.001 - 62.9 vs. 38.8, P < 0.001

IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; Qmax, maximum flow rate; HoLEP, holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; TURP, transurethral resection of the prostate; PVP, photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy.

TOOLS
Share :
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus
  • 589 View
  • 41 Download
We recommend


ARTICLE & ORGAN
Article Category

Browse all articles >

Organ

Browse all articles >

ISSUES
DISEASES & TOPICS
Diseases

Browse all articles >

Topics

Browse all articles >

AUTHOR
INFORMATION

Official Journal of Korean Continence Society & ESSIC (International Society for the Study of BPS) & Korean Society of Urological Research & The Korean Children’s Continence and Enuresis Society & The Korean Association of Urogenital Tract Infection and Inflammation & Korean Society of Geriatric Urological Care
Editorial Office
Department of Urology, Kangbuk Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine,
29 Saemunan-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03181, Korea
Tel: +82-2-2001-2237     Fax: +82-2-2001-2247    E-mail: choys1011@naver.com

Copyright © 2021 by Korean Continence Society.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next