Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical treatment of large volume prostates: a matched pair analysis comparing the open, endoscopic (ThuVEP) and robotic approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare open simple prostatectomy, endoscopic enucleation and laparoscopic, robot-assisted enucleation of high-volume prostate in terms of operation time, blood loss, transfusion and complication rates and early continence rates.

Material and methods

Patients with BPH treated endoscopically (ThuVEP, Hamburg and Hannover) or robotically (Mainz) were evaluated prospectively for prostate size, free flow and validated questionnaires (IPSS, QoL). 35 patients were matched to patients after open prostatectomy (Mainz) for age, prostate size, IPSS and QoL scores. Operation time was noted from the first cut to the last suture; blood loss was estimated by the drop of haemoglobin preoperatively and one day after surgery. Transfusion rates were documented. Early continence was estimated by pad use over the first 24 h after catheter removal. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 22.0.

Results

No significant differences in prostate size, age and preoperative questionnaires were found (p > 0.3). Postoperative flow and the results of the questionnaires were significantly improved (all p < 0.05), without difference between the approaches (p > 0.8). Endoscopic surgery showed superiority in operation time (both p < 0.05); blood loss and transfusion rates were significantly lower compared to open surgery (both p < 0.01) and lower than in robotic surgery without reaching significance (p = 0.18, p = 0.36). Similar results were seen in early continence rates.

Conclusion

Due to our results, endoscopic surgery should be considered as first-line therapy unless there are comorbidities like diverticula and/or bladder calculi that can be easily treated simultaneously by robotic surgery. Against the background of these findings, indications favouring open surgery are getting sparse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A (2015) EAU guidelines on the assessment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol. 67:1099–1109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Millin T (1945) Retropubic prostatectomy; a new extravesical technique; report of 20 cases. Lancet 2:693–696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Freyer PJ (1900) A new method of performing perineal prostatectomy. Br Med J 1:698–699

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gratzke C, Schlenker B, Seitz M (2007) Complications and early postoperative outcome after open prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic enlargement: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Urol 177:1419–1422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Noguera RS, Rodriguez RC (2008) Open adenomectomy: past, present and future. Curr Opin Urol. 18:34–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Madersbacher S, Lackner J, Brössner C: Prostate study group of the Austrian Society of Urology (2005) Reoperation, myocardial infarction and mortality after transurethral and open prostatectomy: a nation-wide, long-term analysis of 23123 cases. Eur Urol 47:499–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ou R, You M, Tang P (2010) A randomized trial of transvesical prostatectomy versus transurethral resection of the prostate for prostate greater than 80 mL. Urology. 76:958–961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Naspro R, Suardi N, Salonia A (2006) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates %3e70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol 50:563–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahyai SA, Lerich K, Kuntz RM (2007) Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 3 year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 52:1456–1463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Elzayat EA, Elhilali MM (2006) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): the endourologic alternative to open prostatectomy. Eur Urol 49:87–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bach T, Netsch C, Pohlmann L (2011) Thulium: YAG vapoenucleation in large volume prostates. J Urol 186:2323–2327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Netsch C, Bach T, Herrmann TR, Neubauer O, Gross AJ (2013) Evaluation of the learning curve for Thulium VapoEnucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) using a mentor based approach. World J Urol 31:1231–1238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sotelo R, Clavijo R, Carmona O, Garcia A, Banda E, Miranda M, Fagin R (2008) Robotic simple prostatectomy. J Urol 179:513–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nestler S, Rubenwolf P, Neisius A (2014) Robot-assisted transvesical enucleation of BPH—lessons from a single surgeon’s learning curve. Urol Pract 1:40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Matei DV, Brescia A, Mazzoleni F (2012) Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP): does it make sense? BJU Int 110:972–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kuntz R, Lehrich K (2002) Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transvesical open enucleations for prostate adenoma greater than 100gm: A randomized prospective trial of 120 pateints. J Urol 168:1465–1469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Baumert H, Ballaro A, Dugardin F (2006) Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: a comparative study. J Urol 175:1691–1694

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pavan N, Zargar H, Sanchez SR, (2016) Robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopy for simple prostatectomy: multicenter comparative outccomes. Urology 91:104–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang M, El Tayeb M, Borofsky M (2017) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy. J Endourol 31:847–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Moody JA, Lingeman JE (2001) Holmium laser enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100g: comparison to open prostatectomy. J Urol 165:459–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. El Hakim A, Elhilali MM (2002) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate can be taught: the first learning experience. BJU Int 90:863–869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Sodha HS (2007) Prospective evaluation of t he learning curve for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. J Urol 177:1468–1470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. C. Thomas and A. Neisius contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Sebastian Nestler, F. C. Roos, C. Hampel, J. W. Thüroff, C. Thomas & A. Neisius

  2. Department of Urology, Hospital Harburg, Hamburg, Germany

    T. Bach

  3. Department of Urology, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland

    T. Herrmann

  4. Hannover Medical School (MHH), Hannover, Germany

    T. Herrmann & S. Jutzi

  5. Department of Urology, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    F. C. Roos

  6. Department of Urology, Marien Hospital, Erwitte, Germany

    C. Hampel

  7. Department of Urology, Brüderkrankenhaus Trier, University of Mainz, Trier, Germany

    A. Neisius

Authors
  1. Sebastian Nestler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Bach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Jutzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. C. Roos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Hampel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. W. Thüroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. C. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. A. Neisius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SN: Project development, Data Collection, Data analysis, Manuscript writing. TB: Project development Manuscript editing Data Collection. TH: Project development Manuscript editing. SJ: Data Collection. FCR: Manuscript editing. CH: Manuscript editing. JWT: Manuscript editing. CT: Data analysis, Manuscript editing. AN: Project development, Data analysis, Manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Nestler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors were not compensated and retained the control over the content of the manuscript.

Research involving human participants

The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee of each hospital.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients at time of follow-up.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nestler, S., Bach, T., Herrmann, T. et al. Surgical treatment of large volume prostates: a matched pair analysis comparing the open, endoscopic (ThuVEP) and robotic approach. World J Urol 37, 1927–1931 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2585-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2585-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation