Home > Journals > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6):569-75

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

REVIEW   Freefree

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6):569-75

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03350-2

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

The use of laser as a therapeutic modality as compared to TURP for the small prostate ≤40 mL: a collaborative review

Sebastiano RAPISARDA 1, Giorgio I. RUSSO 1 , Nadir I. OSMAN 2, Christopher R. CHAPPLE 2, Giuseppe MORGIA 1, Andrea TUBARO 3, Francesco ESPERTO 2, on behalf of EAU-ESRU (European Associations of Urology-European Society of Residents Urologist)

1 Unit of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Catania, Catania, Italy; 2 Department of Urology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospital, Sheffield, UK; 3 Department of Urology, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy



INTRODUCTION: In the last decade therapeutic options for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) have constantly increased. Although transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is still considered the surgical gold standard, different lasers and advanced techniques have been introduced as alternatives to TURP.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A non-systematic Medline/Pubmed literature search was performed with different combination of terms including: “BPH,” “M-TURP,” “B-TURP” “bladder outlet obstruction,” “YAG laser,” “Diode laser,” “Potassium titanyl phosphate,” “KTP,” “bladder outlet obstruction” (BOO), “BOO in small prostate”. Only studies reporting prostate volume ≤40 cc were considered for this review.
EVIDENCE SYNTESIS: Current evidence on the use of laser as a therapeutic modality as compared to TURP reported similar functional results of bipolar-TURP, Thulium laser and Greenlight. For prostate gland ≤40 cc, HoLEP can be technically more difficult while Holmium-TUIP seems to be a valid option but with a higher rate of retrograde ejaculation which is considerably higher than the rate in electrocautery series. The diode laser showed excellent intra-operatively haemostasis with clear endoscopic vision and durable improvements in functional results, but may produce greater passive thermal energy conduction that can cause scrotal edema and anal pain. However, conclusions need to be drawn after median to long term evaluation of patients and consideration of the economic implications, coupled with the potential for reducing morbidity.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence acquisition from the literature showed that mini-invasive surgeries, including Greenlight laser and Holmium laser incision represent valid alternatives to TURP in prostate ≤40 g. We reported effective results of laser therapy as therapeutic modalities as compared to TURP for the small prostate ≤40 mL, both for enucleation and excision or cauterization, however cost effective of laser in the current literature are still scarce and it should be implemented.


KEY WORDS: Transurethral resection of prostate; Lasers, semiconductor; Thulium; Lower urinary tract symptoms; Prostate

top of page