Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

MALE LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS: Edited by Oliver Reich

Vaporization vs. enucleation techniques for BPO

do we have a standard?

Netsch, Christophera; Bach, Thorstenb

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000125
  • Free

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy have been the standard treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) [1,2]. Minimally invasive procedures such as GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) or holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) have been developed to decrease morbidity, with the goal to achieve comparable outcome as compared to TURP [3]. HoLEP and PVP are recommended alternatives to TURP in men with moderate-to-severe LUTS [4▪].

Cornu et al.[5▪▪] evaluated a total of 69 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a meta-analysis for surgical techniques of BPO with regard to perioperative, short-term, and long-term outcome. They concluded that PVP should be offered to patients with prostates more than 100 ml and those at high risk of bleeding or complications. Enucleation should be advocated especially to patients with large prostates. Bipolar TURP should be considered as an alternative to monopolar TURP [5▪▪]. However, no clear algorithms exist to date as to which procedure to choose in which clinical situation [3,4▪,5▪▪]. During the past decade, a variety of laser technologies have been described with a bewildering array of acronyms [6], although long-term data for procedures other than HoLEP and PVP are limited [1–3,4▪,5▪▪,6].

Every approach of laser prostatectomy can be subdivided into three principles, independent of the energy source used: vaporization, resection, and enucleation [7]. In this article, we reviewed recent findings about vaporization and enucleation techniques for the treatment of BPO.

Box 1
Box 1:
no caption available

ENUCLEATION PROCEDURES: PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS

All transurethral enucleation techniques are based on the surgical descriptions by Hiraoka and Akimoto [8] and Fraundorfer and Gilling [9]. Briefly, either the beak of the resectoscope is used to bluntly dissect the prostate off the pseudocapsule and then the source of energy is used to coagulate the bleeding vessels or the source of energy is continuously applied to the layer of enucleation using a two-lobe or three-lobe technique [8,9]. A mechanical morcellator is used for fragmentation and suction of the free floating adenomas after enucleation or prostatic tissue is progressively released towards the bladder neck during the enucleation process and then removed by electrocautery resection, the so-called mushroom technique [9,10].

HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE

HoLEP has been proven to be a size-independent treatment with excellent long-term results [3,4▪,5▪▪]. Currently, a prospective randomized trial (PRT) comparing HoLEP and TURP by Sun et al.[11] was published. At 12-month follow-up, maximum uroflometry (Qmax) (19.77 vs. 18.88 ml/s), postvoid residual volume (PVR) (12.66 vs. 23.22 ml), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (4.95 vs. 7.48), and quality of life (QoL) (1.57 vs. 1.84) were significantly better improved in the HoLEP group (<0.037) [11]. The transfusion rate was significantly higher in TURP than in HoLEP (11 vs. 1.2%, P < 0.05), confirming prior studies that compared HoLEP with TURP [3,4▪,5▪▪].

Klett et al.[12] examined the sexual long-term outcomes 36-months after HoLEP. They found mean International Index of Erectile Function 5 (IIEF-5) scores which were not significantly changed from baseline. However, they did not perform a subgroup analysis of those patients with normal erectile function and those with erectile dysfunction [12].

Numerous studies analysed factors affecting the outcomes of HoLEP: HoLEP appeared to be a viable option for men with BPO and detrusor hypocontractility. Detrusor acontractility did not appear to adversely affect postoperative results [13]. Kwon et al.[14] found that overactive bladder symptoms and urodynamic parameters were significantly improved by HoLEP. They showed significant improvements in IPSS, overactive bladder questionnaire score, and frequency–volume chart parameters. Qmax, PVR, maximal cystometric capacity, and bladder outlet obstruction index had also improved significantly. The number of patients who showed involuntary detrusor contraction in urodynamic studies decreased significantly from 45.5 to 36.4% (P < 0.001). Wisenbaugh et al.[15] examined the influence of prostate morphology and HoLEP technique used (two or three-lobe technique) on postoperative outcomes. Patients with a trilobular prostate had a significant greater decrease in PVR compared to the two-lobe group. All other outcomes appeared to be similar after two or three-lobe HoLEP [15]. Jaeger and Krambeck [16] compared patients with secondary HoLEP after prior BPO surgery (n = 37) in comparison to primary HoLEP (n = 74), with similar outcomes. Mmeje et al.[17] analysed the age dependent morbidity, and functional outcomes after HoLEP. Overall morbidity, hospital stay, and 1-year functional outcomes of HoLEP were similar among all age groups. They concluded that HoLEP is a well tolerated and effective treatment for BPO regardless of age. Choi et al.[18] applied the modified Clavien classification system on the HoLEP procedure. The total morbidity rate was 17.6% and with only four grade III (1%) complications. To note, all 402 patients included in this study were treated by a single surgeon.

Patel et al.[19] retrospectively analysed patients (n = 372) with concomitant procedures (n = 38) at the time of HoLEP. As expected, patients with complex secondary surgical procedures at the time of HoLEP had statistical differences in operative time (221 vs. 65 min), estimated blood loss (92 vs. 33 mL), catheter time (8.5 vs. 1 day), and length of hospitalization (2 vs. 1 day) compared to the control group. However, postoperative outcomes (Qmax, PVR, IPSS) were affected not by the complexity of the secondary procedure [19].

Becker et al.[20] evaluated the feasibility of HoLEP in patients with known prostate cancer (PCa) and LUTS (n = 62), concluding that HoLEP represents a feasible, well tolerated, and effective treatment option in these subgroups of patients. Rivera et al.[21] found that in patients with known PCa with persistently elevated post-HoLEP prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels or low percentage change PSA levels, one should raise suspicion for high risk PCa.

THULIUM VAPOENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE

On the basis of the HoLEP technique, the thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) procedure was first described by Bach et al.[22,23]. ThuVEP can even be performed with reasonable efficiency during the initial learning curve (n = 32) of the surgeon when closely mentored [24]. In a single-centre study of 1080 patients, Gross et al.[25▪▪] demonstrated that ThuVEP is size independent, well tolerated, and efficacious for the treatment of BPO with low perioperative morbidity. Complication rates were independent of prostate size [25▪▪,26]. Median catheter time and hospital stay were 2 and 4 days and did not increase with prostate size in these series [25▪▪,26]. Low perioperative morbidity, efficient tissue reduction, immediate and durable improvement of Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and QoL were also observed at 60-month follow-up [27]. Postoperative PSA levels, as a surrogate marker for complete removal of the adenoma, declined by 83.6 and 87% at 12-month follow-up [27,28]. The feasibility and efficacy of ThuVEP has also been shown in patients at high cardiopulmonary risk on ongoing oral anticoagulants [28]. In this bicentric study, no perioperative thromboembolic events occurred, with four patients requiring (7.1%) blood transfusion. Complications within the first 30 days included urinary tract infections (1.7%), urinary retention (3.6%), and delayed bleeding (7.1%) [28]. Regarding the erectile function after ThuVEP, a marginal, nonsignificant erectile function improvement was reported 12-months after surgery [29]. However, although promising results have been reported for ThuVEP, the ThuVEP procedure has not been studied in PRTs yet.

THULIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE

Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) is a transurethral enucleation technique using the sheath of the resectoscope for blunt dissection of the adenoma with consecutive coagulation using the Tm:YAG fibre [30]. Outcome of ThuLEP vs. HoLEP was studied in one PRT [31] as follows: low perioperative morbidity, efficient tissue reduction, and micturition improvement was without differences between the groups. The improvement in Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and QoL remained stable during the 18-month follow-up period [31].

GREENLIGHT LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE

Feasibility of GreenLight laser enucleation was published by Gomez Sancha and Green [32] in 2010. The procedure consisted of an initial vaporization of the para-sphincteric areas in order to simplify the subsequent enucleation [32]. Brunken et al.[33] reported a feasibility study using the 120-W GreenLight laser involving 21 men with a mean prostate size of 75 ml. Catheterization time was 1.2 days and hospitalization was 3.6 days. The procedure allowed the removal of 35 g prostate tissue, which was equivalent to 47% of the total prostate weight. Significant improvements in IPSS and PVR were reported at the mean follow-up of 5.8 months [33]. A detailed description of the technique from anatomic PVP to photoselective en-bloc enucleation has been published [34▪].

DIODE LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE

Buisan et al.[35] described diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) with a 980-nm diode-pulsed laser. In this feasibility study, 17 patients with a mean prostate volume of 61.26 cc were included. Significant improvements in IPSS and Qmax were noted at 3-month follow-up. Major complications were not seen [35].

In a retrospective nonrandomized series, Yang et al.[36] used a 980-nm diode laser for enucleation technique, ‘the 4-U incision DiLEP technique’. The surgical outcomes and the perioperative complications were compared with patients undergoing TURP. DiLEP resulted in a significantly lower drop in hemoglobin levels, shorter catheterization times, and shorter postoperative stays. However, transfusion rates were not significantly different [36]. After 12-months Qmax, IPSS and PVR improved significantly in DiLEP and TURP without differences between groups [36]. However, randomization method, dropout rate, potency data, and complication rates were not reported.

Yang et al.[37] evaluated a consecutive series of 120 patients treated by DiLEP. A subgroup analysis according to prostate size showed comparable improvements in IPSS, Qmax, and PVR at 6-month follow-up. Twenty-three patients reported sexual activity measured by IIEF-5 score and did not change after surgery or between the groups. The bladder neck contracture (BNC) and ultrasound (US) rates were 1.5 and 3.1% in both groups [37].

In a PRT, Xu et al.[38] compared DiLEP with plasmakinetic enucleation and resection of the prostate. The hemoglobin drop was significantly lower in DiLEP than in plasmakinetic enucleation and resection of the prostate. The duration of enucleation was not different between the groups, whereas the total operating time was significantly shorter in DiLEP. Although catheterization was significantly shorter in the DiLEP group, there were no differences in hospital stay. At follow-up, IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR had significantly improved without differences between study arms. In addition, no US or BNC occurred at 12-month follow-up [38].

ERASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE

Eraser enucleation of the prostate (ELAP), using a 1.318 nm continuous-wave diode laser, was designed to mimic HoLEP. This technique was described in an RCT comparing ELAP (n = 30) with bipolar TURP (n = 30) [39], finding that ELAP was superior to TURP with regard to blood loss, catheter time, and hospital stay. Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and QoL improved significantly after ELAP and bipolar TURP without differences and remained stable (6-month follow-up) [29]. The complication rate was exceptionally low with three grade Id and one grade II complications. At 6-month follow-up, there were no US or BNC. These results were confirmed by a series from the same institution [40]. One Clavien grade 3b complication occurred as follows: a periprostatic abscess, which was treated successfully by transperineal needle aspiration and high-dose antibiotic therapy.

BIPOLAR ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE

Bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipolEP) was introduced in an RCT vs. HoLEP by Gilling [41] and found to be associated with longer operative and recovery room times, as well as higher postoperative irrigation requirement [41]. However, the transfusion rates, catheterization and hospitalization times were similar. At follow-up, no differences in IPSS (7.6 vs. 7.3) and Qmax (19 vs. 22.1 ml/s) and for the complications occurred [41]. Liu et al.[42] carried out bipolar enucleation with the mushroom technique, reporting a retrospective series of 1100 patients and concluded that this procedure is an alternative to TURP and open prostatectomy [42]: transfusion rate was 0.8%, mean catheter time 1.8 days, and mean hospital stay 5.3 days. IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR improved significantly and remain stable at 6-year follow-up. US and BNC developed 1.1 and 0.9% of the patients [42]. Zhu et al.[43▪▪] presented a PRT of patients with prostates at least 70 ml who were either treated by plasmakinetic enukleation of the prostate (PkEP) or bipolar TURP and found PkEP was associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and catheterization time. Postoperative improvements in functional outcomes were comparable between both groups, although the results in the PkEP expanded to be superior during follow-up [43▪▪]. Rao et al.[44] performed a PRT comparing PkEP with open prostatectomy in prostates above 80 ml, being associated with less perioperative morbidity, catheterization time, and hospital stay [43▪▪]. Reoperation rate tended to be higher in the open prostatectomy group (2.5 vs. 12.5%, P = 0.075) [43▪▪]. These results were confirmed in another PRT comparing bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate with open prostatectomy [45]. Kan et al.[46] compared BipolEP with TURP (n = 86) in prostates above 70 g. He confirmed the significant improvement of bipolar enucleation from other series regarding complications [44–46]. Xiong et al.[47] analysed the learning curve of transurethral enucleation resection of the prostate (TUERP). They found that the ratio of conversion to conventional bipolar TURP decreased after 30 cases, and the efficiency of enucleation and resection increased significantly with accumulative experience after 50 cases [47].

VAPORIZATION PROCEDURES

A variety of vaporization procedures using different energy sources have been described [48]. Long-term data and the number of RCTs for procedures other than PVP are limited [3,4▪,5▪▪,48]. In principle, all of these vaporization techniques create a channel through the prostatic adenoma to produce a TUR-like cavity [49].

GREENLIGHT VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE OR PHOTOSELECTIVE VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE

PVP for the treatment of BPO was introduced in 1998 by Malek et al.[50] using a 60-W GreenLight kalium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser. Numerous RCTs have been published on efficacy and safety of the 80-W GreenLight KTP laser [3,4▪,5▪▪], followed by the development of higher powered lasers at 120-W (HPS) [51], and 180-W (XPS) [52,53]. The functional results of PVP are comparable with TURP [4▪], long-term results are still pending [3,4▪,5▪▪].

In the GOLIATH trial, a European randomized controlled multicentre study [54▪▪], the 180-W GreenLight laser proved noninferiority to TURP in terms of IPSS, Qmax, complication rates. Although lower in the early postoperative course, reintervention rate was similar after 6 months.

Kumar et al.[55] compared monopolar (n = 60), bipolar (n = 57), and 120-W PVP (n = 58) in a PRT and found all procedures equally effective at 12-month follow-up. PVP has added advantages in terms of blood loss, blood transfusion, and catheterization time [55]. Twelve-month follow-up confirmed the expected short-term results [3,4▪,5▪▪,55].

Whelan et al.[56] performed a prospective trial comparing 120-W PVP with TURP as an outpatient procedure showing that 120-W PVP was well tolerated and cost-effective outpatient treatment of LUTS and could be completed with minimal blood loss [56]. However, follow-up was only assessed by telephone, outcomes were not clearly defined [56] and the different sample sizes [PVP (n = 140), TURP (n = 24)], make it difficult to interpret the results of the study. Office-based PVP using the 120-W HPS GreenLight laser was retrospectively evaluated in 47 patients by Osterberg et al.[57], also finding office-based PVP to be well tolerated and feasible for men with smaller sized prostates.

Ben-Zvi et al.[58] retrospectively evaluated a hybrid technique involving the 120-W HPS laser using a vapour-incision technique in 25 consecutive men with prostates greater than 80 cc and matched with 25 patients who received only standard PVP. Vapour-incision technique was superior in short-term outcomes compared with standard 120-W HPS PVP in prostates greater than 80 cc.

The superiority of the 180-W XPS GreenLight was shown in one single-centre (200 patients) and one multicentre study (1809 patients) [59,60] as follows: operative time, fibres used, and PSA reduction were more favourable with the 180-W XPS system, suggesting cost-effective and efficient tissue removal [59,60].

Lebdai et al.[61] analysed PSA levels during a 4-year period for 80-W, 120-W, and 180-W PVP. At 6-month follow-up, the maximum change was 60% for 80-W, 48.67% for 120-W, and 53.36% for 180-W PVP [61]. To note, these PSA changes are significantly lower compared to enucleation procedures.

Chen et al.[62] evaluated the outcomes of early palliative 120-W HPS GreenLight PVP in patients with acute urinary retention (AUR) induced by advanced PCa (T3/4) and found 120-W HPS PVP to be well tolerated and effective treatment for advanced PCa with AUR. The 12-month reoperation rate was 13.8%, although nine patients developed hormone refractory PCa on the basis of progressive PSA or local disease progression and received second-line hormonal manipulation or chemotherapy.

Elshal et al.[63] compared the perioperative, functional outcomes of treating BPO secondary to a small prostate (<40 cc) by holmium laser incision of the prostate and PVP. There were no differences between the groups in terms of early and late complications. Reoperation rates were 10.4 and 6.4% in the PVP and holmium laser transurethral incision of the prostate group at 5-year follow-up (P > 0.05). Elshal et al.[63] concluded that both techniques were equally effective, well tolerated, and durable in small prostates.

Kumar et al.[64] assessed the sexual function after 120-W HPS GreenLight laser treatment, showing nonsignificantly decreased IIEF-5 scores postoperatively. Interestingly, these results were in contrast to previously published results using an 80-W KTP GreenLight laser from the same working group, in which patients demonstrated a significant decrease in IIEF-5 scores [65]. The differences in these results between 80-W and 120-W GreenLight treatment were explained by decreased amounts of energy at the apex in the 120-W GreenLight group.

Bruyère et al.[66] performed contrast ultrasonography in 12 patients before, after 180-W XPS GreenLight PVP in the operating room, and postoperatively. He found a nonvascularized area with a thickness of 11.1 mm beyond the created cavity. This area was reduced 1 month postoperatively and disappeared at 6 months [66], concluding that an area of necrosis is induced around the cavity through the GreenLight laser. This must be taken into account to limit the depth of vaporization [66]. Misraï et al.[67] analysed the learning curves for XPS 180-W PVP. Interestingly, the PVP learning curves required at least 120 procedures to meet all parameters of experts in this field (e.g. lasing time/operative time ratio: 66–80%). These learning curves are significantly longer than previously thought and even longer than published for HoLEP and ThuVEP.

THULIUM VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE

Mattioli et al.[68] reported data of thulium vaporization of the prostate (ThuVAP) on 99 patients with small prostates, showing efficient vaporization. Vargas et al. currently analysed the efficacy and safety undergoing ThuVAP as major outpatient surgery. At 6-month follow-up, IPSS and Qmax had improved significantly. Early complications were AUR (1.8%), urinary tract infection (3.6%), and macrohematuria (3.6%). The only late complication observed was BNC in one patient (1.8%) [69]. Pariser et al.[70] also currently presented the 3-month outcomes of 68 patients after ThuVAP. They found significant improvements in IPSS, QoL, PVR, and Qmax [70].

BIPOLAR VAPORIZATION OF THE PROSTATE

Botto et al.[71] reported initial results of a bipolar vaporization technique in 2001. Subsequently, several studies revealed a reduced morbidity and comparable functional short-term results to conventional TURP, although midterm results have been reported to be inferior [3].

A bipolar device using a hemispherical electrode was launched and Reich reported the initial experience on a series of 30 patients [72]. No major complication occurred perioperatively and no blood transfusion was required. Voiding parameter improved after surgery and during follow-up. Geavlete et al.[73] evaluated bipolar vaporization of the prostate (BPVP) in a PRT comparing BPVP with transurethral resection in saline and monopolar TURP. They found that the rates of postoperative hematuria, blood transfusion, and clot retention were significantly higher in the TURP group. The operation time was significantly shorter for BPVP patients, the catheterization period and hospital stay were significantly reduced [73]. At 18-month follow-up, there were no differences in functional outcome between the groups. These results were confirmed by Falahatkar et al.[74], comparing bipolar TURP with BPVP and showing similar complications, better outcomes, superior hemostasis, and efficacy compared to TURP. Geavlete et al.[75] also showed the superiority of continuous BPVP over standard BPVP and TURP with regard to operation time. Both continuous BPVP and standard BPVP had better perioperative safety and improved follow-up voiding and symptom scores than TURP [75].

Kranzbühler et al. published their experience with BPVP in a consecutive series of 83 patients. One-third of the patients were treated under platelet aggregation inhibition. No major intraoperative complications occurred, transfusions were not necessary. Three patients developed US and four patients developed BNC. At 12-month follow-up, IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR were significantly improved [76].

CONCLUSION

HoLEP and PVP are recommended in the current EAU guidelines as alternatives to TURP in men with moderate-to-severe LUTS. A variety of laser technologies mimicking HoLEP and PVP have been described during the past decade, namely ThuVEP, ThuLEP, GreenLight laser enucleation of the prostate, DiLEP, ELAP, BipolEP, PkEP, bipolar plasma enuclation of the prostate, TUERP, ThuVAP, and BPVP. Only very few PRTs with short-term to intermediate-term follow-up have been published limiting the evidence of these procedures No clear algorithms exist to date as to which procedure to choose in which clinical situation. The decision for the adequate transurethral approach to BPO should depend on the patient's comorbidities, the surgeon's personal expertise in different surgical procedures, and the availability of transurethral (laser) procedures.

Acknowledgements

None.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • ▪ of special interest
  • ▪▪ of outstanding interest

REFERENCES

1. Gratzke C, Schlenker B, Seitz M, et al. Complications and early postoperative outcome after open prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic enlargement: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Urol 2007; 177:1419–1422.
2. Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A, et al. Urology Section of the Bavarian Working Group for Quality Assurance. Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 2008; 180:246–249.
3. Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, et al. Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 2010; 58:384–397.
4▪. Gravas S, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, et al. Guidelines on the management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), incl. benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) European Association of Urology 2014; http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/Non-Neurogenic%20Male%20LUTS_(2705).pdf.

This article shows the current EAU guidelines on management of nonneurogenic male LUTS.

5▪▪. Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update. Eur Urol 2014; [Epub ahead of print].

This article provides a current and comprehensive meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials of transurethral procedures for the treatment of LUTS due to BPO.

6. Gilling P. Laser enucleation is increasingly becoming the standard of care for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia of all sizes. Eur Urol 2015; 63:868–869.
7. Bach T, Muschter R, Sroka R, et al. Laser treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: basics and physical differences. Eur Urol 2012; 61:317–325.
8. Hiraoka Y, Akimoto M. Transurethral enucleation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 1989; 142:1247–1250.
9. Fraundorfer MR, Gilling PJ. Holmium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol 1998; 33:69–72.
10. Hochreiter WW, Thalmann GN, Burkhard FC, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate combined with electrocautery resection: the mushroom technique. J Urol 2002; 168:1470–1474.
11. Sun N, Fu Y, Tian T, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized clinical trial. Int Urol Nephrol 2014; 46:1277–1282.
12. Klett DE, Tyson MD II, Mmeje CO, et al. Patient-reported sexual outcomes after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a 3-year follow-up study. Urology 2014; 84:421–426.
13. Mitchell CR, Mynderse LA, Lightner DJ, et al. Efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients with nonneurogenic impaired bladder contractility: results of a prospective trial. Urology 2014; 83:428–432.
14. Kwon O, Lee HE, Bae J, et al. Effect of holmium laser enucleation of prostate on overactive bladder symptoms and urodynamic parameters: a prospective study. Urology 2014; 83:581–585.
15. Wisenbaugh ES, Nunez-Nateras R, Mmeje CO, et al. Does prostate morphology affect outcomes after holmium laser enucleation? Urology 2013; 81:844–848.
16. Jaeger CD, Krambeck AE. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for persistent lower urinary tract symptoms after prior benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery. Urology 2013; 81:1025–1029.
17. Mmeje CO, Nunez-Nateras R, Warner JN, et al. Age-stratified outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. BJU Int 2013; 112:982–989.
18. Choi JI, Moon KY, Yoon JH, et al. Application of the modified clavien classification system to 402 cases of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Korean J Urol 2014; 55:178–181.
19. Patel A, Nunez R, Mmeje CO, et al. Safety and feasibility of concomitant surgery during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). World J Urol 2014; [Epub ahead of print].
20. Becker A, Placke A, Kluth L, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate is safe in patients with prostate cancer and lower urinary tract symptoms: a retrospective feasibility study. J Endourol 2014; 28:335–341.
21. Rivera ME, Frank I, Viers BR, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and perioperative diagnosis of prostate cancer: an outcomes analysis. J Endourol 2014; 28:699–703.
22. Gilling P. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). BJU Int 2008; 101:131–142.
23. Bach T, Wendt-Nordahl G, Michel MS, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of thulium:YAG laser enucleation (VapoEnucleation) of the prostate. World J Urol 2009; 27:541–545.
24. Netsch C, Bach T, Herrmann TR, et al. Evaluation of the learning curve for thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) using a mentor-based approach. World J Urol 2013; 31:1231–1238.
25▪▪. 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 2013; 63:859–867.

The largest thulium vapoenucleation series so far with accurate presentation of the perioperative complications according to the Clavien classification system.

26. Netsch C, Tiburtius C, Bach T, et al. Association of prostate size and perioperative morbidity in thulium:YAG vapoenucleation of the prostate. Urol Int 2014; 93:22–28.
27. Netsch C, Engbert A, Bach T, et al. Long-term outcome following thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate. World J Urol 2014; [Epub ahead of print].
28. Netsch C, Stoehrer M, Brüning M, et al. Safety and effectiveness of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) in patients on anticoagulant therapy. World J Urol 2014; 32:165–172.
29. Tiburtius C, Knipper S, Gross AJ, et al. Impact of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate on erectile function: a prospective analysis of 72 patients at 12-month follow-up. Urology 2014; 83:175–180.
30. Herrmann TR, Bach T, Imkamp F, et al. 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 2010; 28:45–51.
31. Zhang F, Shao Q, Herrmann TR, et al. Thulium laser versus holmium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate: 18-month follow-up data of a single center. Urology 2012; 79:869–874.
32. Gomez Sancha F, Green LEP. GreenLight laser enucleation of the prostate. Eur Urol Suppl 2010; 9:344.
33. Brunken C, Seitz C, Tauber S, et al. Transurethral GreenLight laser enucleation of the prostate: a feasibility study. J Endourol 2011; 25:1199–1201.
34▪. Gomez Sancha F, 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 2014; [Epub ahead of print].

This article provides how to perform the transurethral enucleation technique of the prostate with the GreenLight laser.

35. Buisan O, Saladie JM, Ruiz JM, et al. Diode laser enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP): technique and initial results. Actas Urol Esp 2011; 35:37–41.
36. Yang SS, Hsieh CH, Lee YS, et al. Diode laser (980 nm) enucleation of the prostate: a promising alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate. Lasers Med Sci 2013; 28:353–360.
37. 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; 189:993–998.
38. Xu A, Zou Y, Li B, et al. A randomized trial comparing diode laser enucleation of the prostate with plasmakinetic enucleation and resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Endourol 2013; 27:1254–1260.
39. Lusuardi L, Myatt A, Sieberer M, et al. Safety and efficacy of eraser laser enucleation of the prostate: preliminary report. J Urol 2011; 186:1967–1971.
40. Hruby S, Sieberer M, Schätz T, et al. Eraser laser enucleation of the prostate: technique and results. Eur Urol 2013; 63:341–346.
41. Neill MG, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, et al. Randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of prostate with plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2006; 68:1020–1024.
42. Liu C, Zheng S, Li H, et al. Transurethral enucleation and resection of prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia by plasma kinetics. J Urol 2010; 184:2440–2445.
43▪▪. Zhu L, Chen S, Yang S, et al. Electrosurgical enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection for prostates larger than 70 ml: a prospective, randomized trial with 5-year followup. J Urol 2013; 189:1427–1431.

This prospective randomized study shows excellent long-term results for electrosurgical transurethral enucleation of the prostate.

44. Rao JM, Yang JR, Ren YX, et al. Plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate versus transvesical open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia >80 mL: 12-month follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Urology 2013; 82:176–181.
45. Geavlete B, Stanescu F, Iacoboaie C, et al. Bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate vs open prostatectomy in large benign prostatic hyperplasia cases: a medium term, prospective, randomized comparison. BJU Int 2013; 111:793–803.
46. Kan CF, Tsu HL, Chiu Y, et al. A prospective study comparing bipolar endoscopic enucleation of prostate with bipolar transurethral resection in saline for management of symptomatic benign prostate enlargement larger than 70 g in a matched cohort. Int Urol Nephrol 2014; 46:511–517.
47. Xiong W, Sun M, Ran Q, et al. Learning curve for bipolar transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate in saline for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: experience in the first 100 consecutive patients. Urol Int 2013; 90:68–74.
48. Herrmann TR, Liatsikos EN, Nagele U, et al. EAU Guidelines Panel on Lasers, Technologies. EAU guidelines on laser technologies. Eur Urol 2012; 61:783–795.
49. Wilson LC, Gilling PJ. From coagulation to enucleation: the use of lasers in surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2005; 2:443–448.
50. Malek RS, Barrett DM, Kuntzman RS. High-power potassium-titanylphosphate (KTP/532) laser vaporization prostatectomy: 24 h later. Urology 1998; 51:254–256.
51. 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 follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58:349–355.
52. 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; 61:600–607.
53. 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; 28:73–78.
54▪▪. Bachmann A, Tubaro A, Barber N, et al. 180-W XPS GreenLight laser vaporisation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 6-month safety and efficacy results of a European Multicentre Randomised Trial–the GOLIATH study. Eur Urol 2014; 65:931–942.

An accurate prospective randomized trial showing the noninferiority of GreenLight laser vaporization compared to TURP at 6-month follow-up.

55. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Kumar N, et al. A prospective randomized comparative study of monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate and photoselective vaporization of the prostate in patients who present with benign prostatic obstruction: a single center experience. J Endourol 2013; 27:1245–1253.
56. Whelan JP, Bowen JM, Burke N, et al. A prospective trial of GreenLight PVP (HPS120) versus transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in Ontario, Canada. Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7:335–341.
57. Osterberg EC, No D, Otto BJ, et al. A retrospective review of office-based 532-nm GreenLight laser prostatectomy in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2013; 82:680–684.
58. Ben-Zvi T, Hueber PA, Abdollah F, et al. Short term outcomes of GreenLight vapor incision technique (VIT) of the prostate: comparison of outcomes to standard GreenLight 120W HPS vaporization in prostate volumes greater than 80 cc. Can J Urol 2013; 20:6633–6639.
59. Hueber PA, Liberman D, Ben-Zvi T, et al. 180 W vs 120 W lithium triborate photoselective vaporization of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a global, multicenter comparative analysis of perioperative treatment parameters. Urology 2013; 82:1108–1113.
60. 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; 81:853–858.
61. Lebdai S, Prezelin Y, Pereira H, et al. Prostate-specific antigen evolution after photoselective vaporization of the prostate. J Endourol 2014; 28:347–352.
62. Chen D, Xue B, Shan Y, et al. GreenLight HPS 120-W laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate as early therapy for acute urinary retention in advanced prostate cancer patients. Lasers Med Sci 2013; 28:1339–1344.
63. Elshal AM, Elkoushy MA, Elmansy HM, et al. Holmium:YAG transurethral incision versus laser photoselective vaporization for benign prostatic hyperplasia in a small prostate. J Urol 2014; 191:148–154.
64. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Kumar N, et al. A prospective study on the effect of photoselective vaporization of prostate by 120-w high-performance system laser on sexual function. J Endourol 2014; 28:1115–1120.
65. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Kumar N, et al. Evaluation of the effect of photoselective vaporization of the prostate on sexual function in a prospective study: a single center experience of 150 patients. J Endourol 2012; [Epub ahead of print].
66. Bruyère F, Bodin T, Bleuzen A, et al. Penetration depth with the XPS GreenLight laser assessed by contrast enhanced ultrasonography. J Endourol 2013; 27:1282–1286.
67. Misraï V, Faron M, Guillotreau J, et al. Assessment of the learning curves for photoselective vaporization of the prostate using GreenLight™ 180-Watt-XPS laser therapy: defining the intra-operative parameters within a prospective cohort. World J Urol 2014; 32:539–544.
68. Mattioli S, Munoz R, Recasens R, et al. Treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy with the Revolix laser. Arch Esp Urol 2008; 61:1037–1043.
69. Vargas C, García-Larrosa A, Capdevila S, et al. Vaporization of the prostate with 150-w thulium laser: complications with 6-month follow-up. J Endourol 2014; 28:841–845.
70. Pariser JJ, Famakinwa OJ, Pearce SM, et al. High-power thulium laser vaporization of the prostate: short-term outcomes of safety and effectiveness. J Endourol 2014; [Epub ahead of print].
71. Botto H, Lebret T, Barre P, et al. Electrovaporization of the prostate with the Gyrus device. J Endourol 2001; 15:313–316.
72. Reich O, Schlenker B, Gratzke C, et al. Plasma vaporisation of the prostate: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2010; 57:693–697.
73. Geavlete B, Georgescu D, Multescu R, et al. Bipolar plasma vaporization vs monopolar and bipolar TURP: a prospective, randomized, long-term comparison. Urology 2011; 78:930–935.
74. Falahatkar S, Mokhtari G, Moghaddam KG, et al. Bipolar transurethral vaporization: a superior procedure in benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective randomized comparison with bipolar TURP. Int Braz J Urol 2014; 40:346–355.
75. Geavlete B, Stanescu F, Moldoveanu C, et al. Continuous vs conventional bipolar plasma vaporisation of the prostate and standard monopolar resection: a prospective, randomised comparison of a new technological advance. BJU Int 2014; 113:288–295.
76. Kranzbühler B, Wettstein MS, Fankhauser CD, et al. Pure bipolar plasma vaporization of the prostate: the Zürich experience. J Endourol 2013; 27:1261–1266.
Keywords:

bipolar enucleation of the prostate; bipolar vaporization of the prostate; diode laser enucleation of the prostate; eraser enucleation of the prostate; GreenLight laser enucleation of the prostate; holmium laser enucleation of the prostate; photoselective vaporization of the prostate; thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate; thulium vaporization of the prostate; XPS 180 Watt

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.