Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

HoLEP for acute and non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention: how effective is it?

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine catheter status within 3 months of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for acute and non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention (AUR and NNCUR), to compare short-term outcomes of HoLEP for urinary retention (UR) versus lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), and to report long-term serum creatinine (SC) after HoLEP for high-pressure chronic urinary retention (HPCUR).

Methods

A prospectively maintained database of the first 500 consecutive HoLEP cases performed under the care of a single surgeon was analysed retrospectively. Urodynamic studies (UDS) did not play a role in the decision making process for those with UR. NNCUR was defined as painless, with post-void residual volume (PVR) greater than 300 ml in men able to void and initial catheter drainage > 1000 ml in men unable to void.

Results

280/500 (56%) were in UR: AUR (195), and NNCUR (85) including 22 with HPCUR. The UR cohort were older with higher enucleated tissue weight [median (IQR); 72 years (66–79 year) and 56 g (29.8–86.3 g)], than the LUTS cohort [70 years (64–75 year) and 38 g (18–67 g)] (p < 0.001). 98.9% with AUR and 98.8% with NNCUR were catheter-free 3 months after HoLEP. There were no significant differences in transfusion rates, hospital stay, or time to first trial without catheter (TWOC) between the LUTS and UR cohorts, nor in international prostate symptom score and quality of life scores, maximum urinary flow rate, post void residual volume or urinary incontinence at 3 months. Patients with NNCUR were less likely to pass their first TWOC (58.8%) than those with AUR (84.6%) or LUTS (87.7%), p < 0.001. None with HPCUR had a clinically significant deterioration in SC at a median of 60 months (IQR 36–82 months).

Conclusion

HoLEP has 3-month catheter-free rates in excess of 98.5% for AUR and NNCUR in patients not pre-selected by UDS. First TWOC is significantly more likely to fail after HoLEP for NNCUR than AUR or LUTS. HoLEP is a durable treatment for HPCUR and there is no need to monitor renal function to detect recurrence.

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

Data availability

All raw data are kept in a secure fashion electronically on our hospital IT system.

References

  1. Joshi H, Sali G, Paramore L, Jones R, Lazarowicz KM et al (2021) Current process and outcomes of the surgical management of LUTS due to benign prostatic enlargement: how consistent are we?-results from the multi-institutional audit of surgical management of BPE (AuSuM BPE) in the United Kingdom. Scott Med J. https://doi.org/10.1177/0036933020977295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jaeger CD, Mitchell CR, Mynderse LA, Krambeck AE (2015) Holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) and photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and chronic urinary retention. BJU Int 115:295–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Petersen MD, Matlaga BR, Kim SC, Kuo RL, Soergel TM, Watkins SL, Lingeman JE (2005) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for men with urinary retention. J Urol 174:998–1001. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000170230.26743.e4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Elzayat EA, Habib EI, Elhilali MA (2005) Holmium laser enucleation of prostate for patients in urinary retention. Urology 66:789–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.04.049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnsen NV, Kammann TJ, Marien T, Pickens R, Miller N (2016) Comparison of Holmium Laser Prostate Enucleation outcomes in patients with or without preoperative urinary retention. J Urol 195:1021–1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sacks SH, Aparicio SA, Bevan A, Oliver DO, Will EJ, Davison AM (1989) Late renal failure due to prostatic outflow obstruction: a preventable disease. BMJ 298:156–159. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.298.6667.156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Stoffel J (2017) Non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention: What are we treating? Cur Urol Rep 18:74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0719-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Negro C, Muir G (2012) Chronic urinary retention in men: how we define it and how does it affect treatment outcome. BJU Int 110:1590–1594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fraundorfer MR, Gilling PJ (1998) Holmium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol 33:69–72. https://doi.org/10.1159/000019535

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Losco G, Mark S, Jowitt S (2013) Transurethral prostate resection for urinary retention:does age alter outcome? ANZ J Surg 83:243–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ghalayini IF, Al-Ghazo MA, Pickard RS (2005) A prospective randomized trial comparing transurethral prostatic resection and clean intermittent self-catheterization in men with chronic urinary retention. Urol Int 96:93–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05574.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Goueli R, Meskawi M, Thomas D, Hueber PA, Tholomier C, Valdivieso R, Te A, Zorn K, Chughtai B (2017) Efficacy, safety, and durability of 532 nm laser photovaporization of the prostate with GreenLight 180 W XPS in men with acute urinary retention. J Endourol 31:1189–1194. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McVary KT, Holland B, Beahrs JR (2020) Water vapor thermal therapy to alleviate catheter-dependent urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 23:303–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0187-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aagard M, Niebuhr MH, Jacobsen JD, Nielsen KK (2014) Transurethral microwave thermotherapy treatment of chronic urinary retention in patients unsuitable for surgery. Scand J Urol 48:290–294. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2013.840.857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schelin S, Geertsen U, Walter S, Spånberg A, Duelund-Jacobsen J, Krøyer K et al (2006) Feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP/prostate enucleation surgery in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and chronic urinary retention: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Urology 68:795–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.05.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mitchell CR, Mynderse LA, Lightner DJ, Husmann DA, Krambeck AE (2014) Efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients with non-neurogenic impaired bladder contractility: results of a prospective trial. Urology 83:428–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lomas DJ, Krambeck AE (2016) Long-term efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients with detrusor underactivity or acontractility. Urology 97:208–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pickard R, Emberton M, Neal DE (1998) The management of men with acute urinary retention. National Prostatectomy Audit Steering Group. Br J Urol 81:712–720. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00632.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen JS, Chang CH, Yang WH, Kao YH (2012) Acute urinary retention increases the risk of complications after transurethral resection of the prostate: a population-based study. BJU Int 110:E896-901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11471.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shah H, Sodha H, Kharodawala S, Khandhar A, Hegde S, Bansal M (2008) Influence of prostate size on the outcome of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. BJU Int 101:1536–1541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07434.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuntz R, Lehrich K, Ahyai S (2004) Does perioperative outcome of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate depend on prostate size? J Endourol 18:183–188. https://doi.org/10.1089/089277904322959842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funds, Grants, or other support were received by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK

    Tevita Aho, William Finch, Philippa Jefferson, Lokesh Suraparaju & Fanourios Georgiades

Authors
  1. Tevita Aho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William Finch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philippa Jefferson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lokesh Suraparaju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fanourios Georgiades
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TFA: project development, data collection and management and manuscript writing. WF: data collection and analysis. PJ: data collection. LS: data collection. FG data analysis and manuscript writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tevita Aho.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

TF Aho has received speaker, consultancy and mentorship honoraria from Lumenis Ltd and Boston Scientific Corporation. None of the other authors has any conflict of interest or competing interests.

Ethics approval

Approval to collect and analyse data was given by the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Audit department. ID3347.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the audit.

Consent for publication

Consent was obtained for publication from the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Audit department.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aho, T., Finch, W., Jefferson, P. et al. HoLEP for acute and non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention: how effective is it?. World J Urol 39, 2355–2361 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03657-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03657-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation