Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 691–696 | Cite as

Laparoscopic adenomectomy versus Eraser laser enucleation of the prostate

  • L. Lusuardi
  • S. Hruby
  • G. Janetschek
  • M. Mitterberger
  • M. Sieberer
  • D. Colleselli
  • T. Kunit
  • W. Hitzl
  • B. Kloss
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate functional outcomes and morbidity rates after laparoscopic adenomectomy (LA) and Eraser laser enucleation of the prostate (ELEP).

Materials and methods

Forty patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggesting bladder outlet obstruction, with a prostate heavier than 70 g on transrectal ultrasound, were selected to undergo laparoscopic adenomectomy or Eraser laser enucleation of the prostate. All patients were consecutively enrolled without randomization and assessed preoperatively, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Baseline characteristics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were compared.

Results

The total operating time was significantly longer in the LA group (138.8 ± 11.4 vs. 78.4 ± 10.0 min, p < 0.000001). Catheter removal was performed earlier (61.2 ± 21.3 vs. 174.0 ± 13.2 h, p < 0.000001) and the hospital stay was significantly shorter (62.4 ± 21.2 vs. 187.2 ± 12.6 h, p < 0.000001) in the ELEP group. The latter group experienced significantly less perioperative hemoglobin (Hb) loss (0.71 ± 0.25 vs. 2.15 ± 1.08 g/dl, p < 0.000001), and their postoperative Hb levels (14.1 ± 1.21 vs. 11.7 ± 1.31 g/dl, p < 0.000001) were significantly higher. The resected tissue was significantly greater in the LA group (58.5 ± 23.3 vs. 87.9 ± 22.4 g, p = 0.0002). Significant improvements in Qmax, Qol, and symptom scores from baseline to each follow-up time point were noted in both groups. No statistically significant difference in symptom scores or Qmax was registered between the LA and the ELEP group throughout the follow-up period.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic adenomectomy and ELEP were equally effective for relieving bladder outflow obstruction and lower urinary tract symptoms. The advantages of ELEP include less blood loss, shorter catheterization times, and shorter hospital stays.

Keywords

Prostate Benign prostatic hyperplasia Bladder neck surgery Laser surgery Laparoscopic adenomectomy 

Notes

Conflict of interest

All of the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest with the current manuscript.

Ethical standard

The present manuscript has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and has therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Varkarakis L, Kyriakakis Z, Delis A, Protogerou V, Deliveliotis C (2004) Long-term results of open transvesical prostatectomy from a contemporary series of patients. Urology 64(2):306–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCullough TC, Heldwein FL, Soon SJ et al (2009) Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: an evaluation of morbidity. J Endourol 23(1):129–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Porpiglia F, Terrone C, Renard J et al (2006) Transcapsular adenomectomy (Millin): a comparative study, extraperitoneal laparoscopy versus open surgery. Eur Urol 49(1):120–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumert H, Ballaro A, Dugardin F, Kaisary AV (2006) Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: a comparative study. J Urol 175(5):1691–1694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA (2008) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-year follow-up results of a randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol 53:160–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rolle A, Pereszlenyi A, Koch R et al (2006) Laser resection technique and results of multiple lung metastasectomies using a new 1,318 nm Nd: YAG laser system. Lasers Surg Med 38:26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lusuardi L, Myatt A, Sieberer M et al (2011) Safety and efficacy of Eraser laser enucleation of the prostate: preliminary report. J Urol 186:1967–1971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hruby S, Sieberer M, Schätz T et al (2013) Eraser laser enucleation of the prostate: technique and results. Eur Urol 63(2):341–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahyai SA, Lehrich K (2007) Kuntz RM Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 52:1456–1463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eltabey MA, Sherif H, Hussein AA (2010) Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate. Can J Urol 17:5447–5452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilling PJ, Wilson LC, King CJ, Westenberg AM, Frampton CM, Fraundorfer MR (2012) Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate: results at 7 years. BJU Int 109:408–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta N, Sivaramakrishna KR, Dogra PN, Seth A (2006) Comparison of standard transurethral resection, transurethral vapour resection and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia of >40 g. BJU Int 97:85–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mavuduru RM, Mandal AK, Singh SK et al (2009) Comparison of HoLEP and TURP in terms of efficacy in the early postoperative period and perioperative morbidity. Urol Int 82:130–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montorsi F, Naspro R, Salonia A et al (2004) 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 172:1926–1929CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salonia A, Suardi N, Naspro R et al (2006) Holmium laser enucleation versus open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an inpatient cost analysis. Urology 68:302–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuntz RM (2006) Current role of lasers in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Eur Urol 49:961–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tan AH, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, Frampton C, Westenberg AM, Fraundorfer MR (2003) 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 170:1270–1274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen YB, Chen Q, Wang Z et al (2013) A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing plasmakinetic resection of the prostate with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate based on a 2-year followup. J Urol 189:217–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A et al (2013) EAU guidelines on the treatment and follow-up of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol 64:118–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herrmann TR, Bach T, Imkamp F 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(1):45–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang F, Shao Q, Herrmann TR, Tian Y, Zhang Y (2012) Thulium laser versus holmium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate: 18-month follow-up data of a single center. Urology 79(4):869–874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paweł Świniarski P, Stępień S, Dudzic W, Kęsy S, Blewniewski M, Różański W (2012) Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (TmLEP) vs. transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): evaluation of early results. Cent European. J Urol 65(3):130–134Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iacono F, Prezioso D, Di Lauro G et al (2012) Efficacy and safety profile of a novel technique, ThuLEP (Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate) for the treatment of benign prostate hypertrophy. Our experience on 148 patients. BMC Surg 12(Suppl 1):21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wezel F, Wendt-Nordahl G, Huck N et al (2010) New alternatives for laser vaporization of the prostate: experimental evaluation of a 980-, 1,318- and 1,470-nm diode laser device. World J Urol 28(2):181–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mariano MB, Graziottin TM, Tefilli MV (2002) Laparoscopic prostatectomy with vascular control for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 167(6):2528–2529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCullough TC, Heldwein FL, Soon SJ, Galiano M, Barret E, Cathelineau X et al (2009) Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: an evaluation of morbidity. J Endourol 23(1):129–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barret E, Bracq A, Braud G et al (2006) The morbidity of laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy. Eur Urol Suppl 5:274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peltier A, Hoffmann P, Hawaux E, Entezari K, Deneft F, van Velthoven R (2007) Laparoscopic extraperitoneal Millin’ s adenomectomy versus open retropubic adenomectomy: a prospective comparison. Eur Urol Suppl 6:163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoepffner JL, Gaston R, Piechaud T et al (2006) Finger assisted laparoscopic retropubic prostatectomy (Millin). Eur Urol Suppl 5:962–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Asimakopoulos AD, Mugnier C, Hoepffner JL et al (2012) The surgical treatment of a large prostatic adenoma: the laparoscopic approach-a systematic review. Endourol 26(8):960–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Lusuardi
    • 1
  • S. Hruby
    • 1
  • G. Janetschek
    • 1
  • M. Mitterberger
    • 1
  • M. Sieberer
    • 1
  • D. Colleselli
    • 1
  • T. Kunit
    • 1
  • W. Hitzl
    • 2
  • B. Kloss
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology and AndrologyParacelsus Medical University SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  2. 2.Research Office, BiostatisticsParacelsus Medical UniversitySalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations