Advertisement

Der Urologe

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 263–270 | Cite as

Operative Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms – resezieren, vaporisieren oder enukleieren?

  • M. RiekenEmail author
  • T. R. W. Herrmann
  • C. Füllhase
Leitthema
  • 51 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Das benigne Prostatasyndrom (BPS) ist die häufigste Erkrankung im Bereich des unteren Harntrakts des Mannes. Zur operativen Therapie stehen neben der transurethralen Resektion (TURP) die Vaporisation der Prostata und die endoskopische Enukleation zur Verfügung.

Ziel der Arbeit

Es wird eine Übersicht der aktuellen Daten zum Stellenwert einzelner Verfahren in der Therapie des BPS aufgezeigt.

Material und Methoden

Zum Thema der operativen Therapie des BPS wird ein narrativer Review der englischsprachigen Literatur gegeben.

Ergebnisse

Zur operativen Therapie des BPS stehen neben der TURP, welche weiter als Referenztechnik für ein Prostatavolumen <80 ml gilt, die Greenlight-Laservaporisation (GLV) und die endoskopische Enukleation (EEP) der Prostata als etablierte und evidenzbasierte Alternativen zur Verfügung. In zahlreichen prospektiv randomisierten Studien konnte sowohl die GLV als auch die EEP als der TURP ebenbürtiges Verfahren hinsichtlich funktioneller Resultate gezeigt werden. Als Referenztechnik, an der sich neue Verfahren messen, sollte aufgrund der geringeren Morbidität sowie vergleichbarer funktioneller Resultate primär die bipolare TURP und nicht mehr die monopolare TURP gelten. Die GLV weist auch bei Patienten mit fortgeführter oraler Antikoagulation oder Thrombozytenaggregationshemmung eine hohe intra- und postoperative Sicherheit auf. Die EEP hat als einziges transurethrales Therapieverfahren auch bei Patienten mit Prostatavolumina >80 ml eine hohe Evidenz von Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Wahl des operativen Therapieverfahrens des BPS sollte individuell in Abhängigkeit von Prostatagröße, Komorbiditäten sowie Erfahrung des Operateurs gewählt werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Operative Therapie Transurethrale Resektion Laser Vaporisation Enukleation 

Surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia—resection, vaporization or enucleation?

Abstract

Background

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the most common condition affecting the male lower urinary tract. Besides transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), vaporization of the prostate and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate are available.

Objectives

To provide an overview of the current status of surgical therapies for BPH.

Materials and methods

Narrative review of the literature on the surgical treatment of BPH.

Results

Besides TURP, which still can be regarded as the reference technique for surgical treatment of BPH in men with a prostate volume <80 cc, greenlight laser vaporization of the prostate (GLV) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are established and evidence-based alternatives. A multitude of prospective randomized trials could show comparable functional outcomes of GLV or EEP in comparison to TURP. Based on lower comorbidity and comparable outcomes, bipolar TURP rather than monopolar TURP should be regarded as the surgical reference technique. In patients with ongoing oral anticoagulation of thrombocyte aggregation inhibition, GLV provides high intra- und postoperative safety. Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate is the only transurethral surgical method which provides high level evidence concerning safety and efficacy in patients with prostates >80 cc.

Conclusions

Choice of surgical treatment of BPH should be individualized and based on prostate size, comorbidities and surgical experience.

Keywords

Surgical treatment Transurethral resection Laser Vaporization Endoscopic enucleation 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

M. Rieken, T. R. W. Herrmann und C. Füllhase geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, de la Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C et al (2015) 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 67:1066–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomas JA, Tubaro A, Barber N, d’Ancona F, Muir G, Witzsch U et al (2016) 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-yr outcomes of the GOLIATH study. Eur Urol 69:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bachmann A, Tubaro A, Barber N, d’Ancona F, Muir G, Witzsch U et al (2014) 180-W XPS GreenLight laser vaporisation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 6‑month safety and efficacy results of a European Multicentre Randomised Trial – the GOLIATH study. Eur Urol 65:931–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Kumar N, Nanda B, Jha SK, Mohanty N (2013) A prospective randomized comparative study of monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate and photoselective vaporization of the prostate in patients who present with benign prostatic obstruction: a single center experience. J Endourol 27:1245–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fayad AS, Sheikh MG, Zakaria T, Elfottoh HA, Alsergany R (2011) Holmium laser enucleation versus bipolar resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized study. Which to choose? J Endourol 25:1347–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fayad AS, Elsheikh MG, Zakaria T, Elfottoh HA, Alsergany R, Elshenoufy A et al (2015) Holmium laser Enucleation of the prostate versus bipolar resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized study. „pros and cons“. Urology 86:1037–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bach T, Wolbling F, Gross AJ, Netsch C, Tauber S, Pottek T et al (2017) Prospective assessment of perioperative course in 2648 patients after surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. World J Urol 35:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilfrich C et al (2016) Morbidity and mortality after surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms: a study of 95 577 cases from a nationwide German health insurance database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19(4):406–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gravas S, Cornu JN, Drake MJ, Gacci M, Gratzke C, Herrmann TRW et al (2018) EAU guidelines on the managment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms retrieved from. www.uroweborg/guideline/treatment-of-non-neurogenic-male-luts/. Letzter Zugriff: 20.12.2018Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R (2006) Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) – incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 50:969–979 (discussion 80)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Höfner K, Bach T, Berges R, Bschleipfer T, Dreikorn K, Gratzke C et al (2014) Leitlinie zur Therapie des benignen Prostatasyndroms der Qualität S2 AK BPS der Akademie der Urologen, DGU, BDU. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien.html. Letzter Zugriff: 20.12.2018Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eredics K, Wachabauer D, Rothlin F, Madersbacher S, Schauer I (2018) Reoperation rates and mortality after transurethral and open prostatectomy in a long-term nationwide analysis: have we improved over a decade? Urology 118:152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fullhase C (2016) Transurethral resection of the prostate. Urol A 55:1433–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elzayat EA, Elhilali MM (2007) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): long-term results, reoperation rate, and possible impact of the learning curve. Eur Urol 52:1465–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brunckhorst O, Ahmed K, Nehikhare O, Marra G, Challacombe B, Popert R (2015) Evaluation of the learning curve for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using multiple outcome measures. Urology 86:824–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robert G, Cornu JN, Fourmarier M, Saussine C, Descazeaud A, Azzouzi AR et al (2016) Multicentre prospective evaluation of the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). BJU Int 117:495–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Seitz M, Schlenker B, Hermanek P et al (2008) Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 180:246–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robert G, de la Taille A, Herrmann T (2015) Bipolar plasma vaporization of the prostate: ready to replace GreenLight? A systematic review of randomized control trials. World J Urol 33:549–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wroclawski ML, Carneiro A, Amarante RD, Oliveira CE, Shimanoe V, Bianco BA et al (2016) „Button type“ bipolar plasma vaporisation of the prostate compared with standard transurethral resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome studies. BJU Int 117:662–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Geavlete B, Multescu R, Dragutescu M, Jecu M, Georgescu D, Geavlete P (2010) Transurethral resection (TUR) in saline plasma vaporization of the prostate vs standard TUR of the prostate: „the better choice“ in benign prostatic hyperplasia? BJU Int 106:1695–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Geavlete B, Stanescu F, Iacoboaie C, Geavlete P (2013) Bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate vs open prostatectomy in large benign prostatic hyperplasia cases – a medium term, prospective, randomized comparison. BJU Int 111:793–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nuhoglu B, Balci MB, Aydin M, Hazar I, Onuk O, Tas T et al (2011) The role of bipolar transurethral vaporization in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Int 87:400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang SY, Hu H, Zhang XP, Wang D, Xu KX, Na YQ et al (2012) Efficacy and safety of bipolar plasma vaporization of the prostate with „button-type“ electrode compared with transurethral resection of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Chin Med J 125:3811–3814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, de la Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C et al (2015) 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 67:1066–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rieken M, Bachmann A (2014) Update on Greenlight laser vaporization (GLV). World J Urol 2015(33):531–537Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhou Y, Xue B, Mohammad NA, Chen D, Sun X, Yang J et al (2016) 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 31:485–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hammadeh MY, Madaan S, Hines J, Philp T (2003) 5‑year outcome of a prospective randomized trial to compare transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate and standard transurethral resection. Urology 61:1166–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zheng X, Qiu Y, Qiu S, Tang L, Nong K, Han X et al (2018) Photoselective vaporization has comparative efficacy and safety among high-risk benign prostate hyperplasia patients on or off systematic anticoagulation: a meta-analysis. World J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2530-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee DJ, Rieken M, Halpern J, Zhao F, Pueschel H, Chughtai B et al (2016) Laser vaporization of the prostate with the 180-W XPS-Greenlight laser in patients with ongoing platelet aggregation inhibition and oral anticoagulation. Urology 91:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meskawi M, Hueber PA, Valdivieso R, Karakiewicz PI, Pradere B, Misrai V et al (2018) Complications and functional outcomes of high-risk patient with cardiovascular disease on antithrombotic medication treated with the 532-nm-laser photo-vaporization Greenlight XPS-180 W for benign prostate hyperplasia. World J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2560-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Knapp GL, Chalasani V, Woo HH (2017) Perioperative adverse events in patients on continued anticoagulation undergoing photoselective vaporisation of the prostate with the 180-W Greenlight lithium triborate laser. BJU Int 119(Suppl 5):33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ajib K, Mansour M, Zanaty M, Alnazari M, Hueber PA, Meskawi M et al (2018) Photoselective vaporization of the prostate with the 180-W XPS-Greenlight laser: Five-year experience of safety, efficiency, and functional outcomes. Can Urol Assoc J 12:E318–E24PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Valdivieso R, Hueber PA, Meskawi M, Belleville E, Ajib K, Bruyere F et al (2018) Multicentre international experience of 532-nm laser photoselective vaporization with GreenLight XPS in men with very large prostates. BJU Int 122:873–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fraundorfer MR, Gilling PJ (1998) Holmium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol 33:69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hiraoka Y (1983) A new method of prostatectomy, transurethral detachment and resection of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Nippon Ika Daigaku Zasshi 50:896–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gilling PJ (2013) Bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate vs open prostatectomy in large benign prostatic hyperplasia cases – a medium-term, prospective, randomized comparison. BJU Int 111:694–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Herrmann TR, Bach T, Imkamp F, Georgiou A, Burchardt M, Oelke M et al (2010) Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP): transurethral anatomical prostatectomy with laser support. Introduction of a novel technique for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. World J Urol 28:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Elkoushy MA, Elhilali MM (2016) Management of benign prostatic Hyperplasia larger than 100 ml: simple open Enucleation versus transurethral laser prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep 17:44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tinmouth WW, Habib E, Kim SC, Kuo RL, Paterson RF, Terry CL et al (2005) Change in serum prostate specific antigen concentration after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a marker for completeness of adenoma resection? J Endourol 19:550–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kasivisvanathan V, Hussain M (2018) Aquablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 1 year United States – cohort outcomes. Can J Urol 25:9317–9322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lin Y, Wu X, Xu A, Ren R, Zhou X, Wen Y et al (2016) 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 Urol 34:1207–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li M, Qiu J, Hou Q, Wang D, Huang W, Hu C et al (2015) Endoscopic enucleation versus open prostatectomy for treating large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 10:e121265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Elmansy HM, Kotb A, Elhilali MM (2011) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: long-term durability of clinical outcomes and complication rates during 10 years of followup. J Urol 186:1972–1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Elzayat EA, Elhilali MM (2006) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): the endourologic alternative to open prostatectomy. Eur Urol 49:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, Kuntz RM, Madersbacher S, Montorsi F et al (2010) Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 58:384–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhu L, Chen S, Yang S, Wu M, Ge R, Wu W et al (2013) Electrosurgical enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection for prostates larger than 70 ml: a prospective, randomized trial with 5‑year followup. J Urol 189:1427–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Becker B, Herrmann TRW, Gross AJ, Netsch C (2018) Thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of large volume prostates: preliminary 6‑month safety and efficacy results of a prospective randomized trial. World J Urol 36:1663–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Becker B, Netsch C, Hansen J, Bohme A, Gross AJ, Zaccharias M et al (2019) Perioperative safety in patient under oral anticoagulation during holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) of the prostate. J Endourol.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0693 [Epub ahead of print]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kampantais S, Dimopoulos P, Tasleem A, Acher P, Gordon K, Young A (2018) Assessing the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (hoLEP). A systematic review. Urology 120:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Peyronnet B, Robert G, Comat V, Roupret M, Gomez-Sancha F, Cornu JN et al (2017) Learning curves and perioperative outcomes after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a comparison between GreenLight 532-nm and holmium lasers. World J Urol 35:973–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cockrell R, Lee DI (2017) Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: expanding on an established operative approach. Curr Urol Rep 18:37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Aho T, Herrmann TR (2015) Description of a modular mentorship programme for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. World J Urol 33:497–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Liu C, Zheng S, Li H, Xu K (2010) Transurethral enucleation and resection of prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia by plasma kinetics. J Urol 184:2440–2445CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.alta uro AGBaselSchweiz
  2. 2.Universität BaselBaselSchweiz
  3. 3.Spital Thurgau AGKantonsspital FrauenfeldFrauenfeldSchweiz
  4. 4.Klinik für Urologie und KinderurologieUniversitätsklinikum des SaarlandesHomburg/SaarDeutschland

Personalised recommendations