Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Larger than 100 ml: Simple Open Enucleation Versus Transurethral Laser Prostatectomy

  • Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (K McVary, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common causes of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in aging men. Over the age of 60, more than a half of men have BPH and/or bothersome LUTS. Contemporary guidelines advocate surgery as the standard of care for symptomatic BPH after failure of medical therapy, where the choice of the appropriate surgical procedure depends on the prostate size. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and simple open prostatectomy (OP) have been considered for decades the reference-standard techniques for men with prostate smaller and larger than 80 ml, respectively. However, both procedures are potentially associated with considerable perioperative morbidity which prompted the introduction of a variety of minimally invasive surgical techniques with comparable long-term outcomes compared to TURP and OP. Nevertheless, the management of prostates larger than 100 ml remains a clinical challenge. Transurethral anatomical enucleation of the prostate utilizing different laser energy represents an excellent alternative concept in transurethral BPH surgery. These procedures gained popularity and demonstrated similar outcomes to OP with the advantages of favorable morbidity profiles and shorter catheter time and hospital stay. Despite the fact that OP remains a viable treatment option for patients with bothersome LUTS secondary to very large prostates, this procedure has been to a large extent replaced by these emerging enucleation techniques. Given the advent of surgical alternatives, the current review presents an evidence-based comparison of the efficacy and safety profile of the currently available transurethral laser techniques with the standard OP for the management of BPH due to adenomas larger than 100 ml.

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

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. McConnell JD. The pathophysiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Androl. 1991;12:356–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gu FL, Xia TL, Kong XT. Preliminary study of the frequency of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic cancer in China. Urology. 1994;44:688–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Tsukamoto T, Richard F, Garraway WM, Sagnier PP, et al. Health-related quality of life associated with lower urinary tract symptoms in four countries. Urology. 1998;51:428–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Welch G, Weinger K, Barry MJ. Quality-of-life impact of lower urinary tract symptom severity: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Urology. 2002;59:245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, European Association of Urology, et al. EAU guidelines on the treatment and follow-up of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol. 2013;64:118–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Suer E, Gokce I, Yaman O, Anafarta K, Gogus O. Open prostatectomy is still a valid option for large prostates: a high-volume, single-center experience. Urology. 2008;72:90–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Serretta V, Morgia G, Fondacaro L, Curto G, Lo bianco A, Pirritano D, et al. Open prostatectomy for benign prostatic enlargement in southern Europe in the late 1990s: a contemporary series of 1800 interventions. Urol. 2002;60:623–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zheng SB, Liu CX, Xu YW. Application of intracavitary retrograde dissection in transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate. Di Yi Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao. 2005;25(734–735):738.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Elshal AM, El-Nahas AR, Barakat TS, et al. Transvesical open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the era of minimally invasive surgery: perioperative outcomes of a contemporary series. Arab J Urol. 2013;11:362–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lucca I, Shariat SF, Hofbauer SL, Klatte T. Outcomes of minimally invasive simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2015;33(4):563–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pariser JJ, Pearce SM, Patel SG, et al. National trends of simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia with an analysis of risk factors for adverse perioperative outcomes. Urology. 2015;86:721–6. The national use of OP significantly decreased yearly, whereas 5 % of procedures were performed using a minimally invasive approach by 2012. An overall complication rate of 28 % has been reported, with 0.4 % in-hospital mortality. Older age, black race, and overall comorbidity were at higher risk of complications in the multivariate analysis while the use of a minimally invasive approach and concomitant cystolithotomy were associated with a decreased risk.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Li M, Qiu J, Hou Q, et al. Endoscopic enucleation versus open prostatectomy for treating large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2015;10(3), e0121265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen S, Zhu L, Cai J, et al. Plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate compared with open prostatectomy for prostates larger than 100 grams: a randomized noninferiority controlled trial with long-term results at 6 years. Eur Urol. 2014;66:284–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Burke N, Whelan JP, Goeree L, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of transurethral resection of the prostate versus minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. Urology. 2010;75:1015–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. de Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, et al. Gyrus bipolar versus standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Urology. 2006;67:69–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Singh H, Desai MR, Shrivastav P, Vani K. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of prostate: randomized controlled study. J Endourol. 2005;19:333–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL et al (2010) American urological association guideline: management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). http://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/benign-prostatic-hyperplasia.cfm. Accessed 23 Feb 2016.

  19. Herrmann TR, Liatsikos EN, Nagele U, et al. EAU guidelines panel on lasers, technologies. Eur Urol. 2012;61:783.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA. 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. 2008;53:160–6. At 5 yearS follow-up, there were comparable functional outcomes between HoLEP and OP but HoLEP group has the advantages of shorter hospitalization stay and catheterization times, less blood loss, and lower transfusion rates. Reoperation rates were respectively comparable between both arms while no patient needed redo for recurrent adenoma.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang Y, Du CJ, Xu G, Chen JM, Jing X. Transurethral holmium laser enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 g. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2007;13:1091–93.

  22. Naspro R, Suardi N, Salonia A, Scattoni V, Guazzoni G, Colombo R, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates >70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol. 2006;50:563–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moody JA, Lingeman JE. Holmium laser enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 gm.: comparison to open prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001;165(2):459–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ahyai SA, Chun FK, Lehrich K, et al. Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate and simple open prostatectomy—which procedure is faster? J Urol. 2012;187(5):1608–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Alivizatos G, Skolarikos A, Chalikopoulos D, et al. Transurethral photoselective vaporization versus transvesical open enucleation for prostatic adenomas >80 ml: 12-mo results of a randomized prospective study. Eur Urol. 2008;54:427–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Skolarikos A, Papachristou C, Athanasiadis G, et al. Eighteen-month results of a randomized prospective study comparing transurethral photoselective vaporization with transvesical open enucleation for prostatic adenomas greater than 80 cc. J Endourol. 2008;22(10):2333–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vincent MW, Gilling PJ. HoLEP has come of age. World J Urol. 2015;33:487–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Humphreys MR, Miller NL, Handa SE, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate-outcomes independent of prostate size? J Urol. 2008;180:2431–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai S. Does perioperative outcome of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate depend on prostate size? J Endourol. 2004;18:183–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Elkoushy MA, Elshal AM, Elhilali MM. Reoperation after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: assessment of risk factors with time to event analysis. J Endourol. 2015;29:797–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gilling PJ, Wilson LC, King CJ, et al. 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. 2012;109:408–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones P, Alzweri L, Rai BP, et al. Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol. 2016;14(1):50–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Salonia A, Suardi N, Naspro R, et al. Holmium laser enucleation versus open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an inpatient cost analysis. Urology. 2006;68:302–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Robert G, Cornu JN, Fourmarier M, et al. Multicentre prospective evaluation of the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). BJU Int. 2016;117(3):495–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tubaro A, de Nunzio C. The current role of open surgery in BPH. EAU-EBU Update Ser. 2006;4:191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pfitzenmaier J, Gilfrich C, Pritsch M, et al. Vaporization of prostates of > or =80 mL using a potassium-titanyl-phOPhate laser: midterm-results and comparison with prostates of <80 mL. BJU Int. 2008;102(3):322–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Woo HH. Photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 120-W lithium triborate laser in enlarged prostates (>120 cc). BJU Int. 2011;108:860–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Woo H, Reich O, Bachmann A, et al. Outcome of GreenLight HPS 120-W laser therapy in specific patient populations: those in retention, on anticoagulants, and with large prostates (>80 ml). Eur Urol Suppl. 2008;7:378–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ruszat R, Wyler S, Seifert HH, et al. Photoselective vaporization of the prostate: experience with prostate adenomas >80 cm3. Urol A. 2006;45:858–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rajbabu K, Chandrasekara SK, Barber NJ, et al. Photoselective vaporization of the prostate with the potassium titanyl-phOPhate laser in men with prostates of >100 mL. BJU Int. 2007;100:593–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gu X, Vricella GJ, Spaliviero M, Wong C. Does size really matter? The impact of prostate volume on the efficacy and safety of GreenLight HPS laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate. J Endourol. 2012;26:525–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Elmansy H, Baazeem A, Kotb A, Badawy H, Riad E, Emran A, et al. Holmium laser enucleation versus photoselective vaporization for prostatic adenoma greater than 60 ml: preliminary results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2012;188:216–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Horasanli K, Silay MS, Altay B, et al. Photoselective potassium titanyl phOPhate (KTP) laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for prostates larger than 70 mL: a short-term prospective randomized trial. Urology. 2008;71:247–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hueber PA, Ben-Zvi T, Liberman D, et al. Mid-term outcomes of initial 250 case experience with GreenLight 120W-HPS photoselective vaporization prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison of prostate volumes <60 cc, 60 cc-100 cc and >100 cc. Can J Urol. 2012;19:6450–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Al-Ansari A, Younes N, Sampige VP, et al. GreenLight HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with midterm followup. Eur Urol. 2010;58:349–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Altay B, Erkurt B, Kiremit MC, et al. 180-W XPS GreenLight laser vaporization for benign prostate hyperplasia: 12-month safety and efficacy results for glands larger than 80 mL. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30:317–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ben-Zvi T, Hueber PA, Liberman D, et al. GreenLight XPS 180W vs HPS 120W laser therapy for benign prostate hyperplasia: a prospective comparative analysis after 200 cases in a single-center study. Urology. 2013;81:853–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bachmann A, Muir GH, Collins EJ, et al. 180-W XPS GreenLight laser therapy for benign prostate hyperplasia: early safety, efficacy, and perioperative outcome after 201 procedures. Eur Urol. 2012;61:600–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Emara AM, Barber NJ. The continuous evolution of the Greenlight laser; the XPS generator and the MoXy laser fiber, expanding the indications for photoselective vaporization of the prostate. J Endourol. 2014;28:73–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Elshal AM, Elkoushy MA, El-Nahas AR, et al. GreenLight™ Laser (XPS) photoselective vapo-enucleation versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled study. J Urol. 2015;193(3):927–34. The only RCT which compared vapoenucleation using XPS/180W with HoLEP, which were comparable in improving functional outcomes after 12 months. After 4 months, prostate size reduction was significantly higher in the HoLEP group while electrocautery was necessary for completion of the procedure in 15 % patients undergoing XPS due to large prostate size, which reaches up to 150 ml in some patients.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sancha FG, Rivera VC, Georgiev G, et al. Common trend: move to enucleation—is there a case for GreenLight enucleation? Development and description of the technique. World J Urol. 2015;33:539–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Liu CL, Xue DW, Liu YL, Wang P. Greenlight photoselective vaporization prostatectomy versus thulium laser vaporesection of the prostate for aged high-risk BPH patients with the prostate heavier than 80 g. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2011;17:431–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sun F, Han B, Cui D, et al. Long‑term results of thulium laser resection of the prostate: a prospective study at multiple centers. World J Urol. 2015;33:503–8. This study reported the longest-term data after ThuVARP, with up to 8 years follow-up. Urethral stricture and bladder neck contracture occurred in 2.6 and 1.6 % of patients, respectively, while reoperation due to recurrence of adenoma was required in 1.2 % patients.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhang F, Shao Q, Herrmann TR, Tian Y, Zhang Y. Thulium laser versus holmium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate: 18 month follow-up data of a single center. Urology. 2012;79:869–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Iacono F, Prezioso D, Di Lauro G, et al. 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. 2012;12 Suppl 1:S21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Bach T, Netsch C, Pohlmann L, et al. Thulium:YAG vapoenucleation in large volume prostates. J Urol. 2011;186:2323–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gross AJ, Netsch C, Knipper S, et al. Complications and early postoperative outcome in 1080 patients after thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate: results at a single institution. Eur Urol. 2014;63:859–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Netsch C, Bach T, Herrmann TR, Gross AJ. Update on the current evidence for Tm:YAG vapoenucleation of the prostate 2014. World J Urol. 2015;33(4):517–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kyriazis I, Swiniarski PP, Jutzi S, et al. Transurethral anatomical enucleation of the prostate with Tm:YAG support (ThuLEP): review of the literature on a novel surgical approach in the management of benign prostatic enlargement. World J Urol. 2015;33:525–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Yang SS, Hsieh CH, Chiang IN, et al. Prostate volume did not affect voiding function improvements in diode laser enucleation of the prostate. J Urol. 2013;189:993–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lusuardi L, Myatt A, Sieberer M, et al. Safety and efficacy of Eraser laser enucleation of the prostate: preliminary report. J Urol. 2011;186:19671971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, 1001 Boulevard Decarie, D05.5327, Montreal, QC, Canada, H4A 3J1

    Mohamed A. Elkoushy & Mostafa M. Elhilali

  2. Department of Urology, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

    Mohamed A. Elkoushy

Authors
  1. Mohamed A. Elkoushy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mostafa M. Elhilali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mostafa M. Elhilali.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Mohamed A. Elkoushy and Mostafa M. Elhilali each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elkoushy, M.A., Elhilali, M.M. Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Larger than 100 ml: Simple Open Enucleation Versus Transurethral Laser Prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep 17, 44 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0601-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0601-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation