POINT OF VIEW
Various, more minimally invasive laser-based procedures have been introduced into clinical practice for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) during the past 20 years as alternatives to open prostatectomy and transurethral resection of the prostate to decrease perioperative morbidity and to achieve comparable outcomes. The most prominent role played the frequency-doubled neodymium:yttrium–aluminium–garnet (YAG) laser or GreenLight laser and the holmium:YAG laser .
Since the introduction of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in 1998, this procedure has gained worldwide acceptance because of complete dissection of the prostate adenoma from the prostatic pseudocapsule . HoLEP has been proven to be a size-independent, well tolerated and efficient procedure with excellent long-term outcomes . The shallow learning curve of the HoLEP technique has, however, limited its widespread use . A learning curve of at least 25–50 cases was found acceptable using a structured mentorship programme .
On the basis of HoLEP, a wide array of so-called ‘me too’ laser-based transurethral enucleation techniques have been described during the past 12 years using diode, GreenLight and thulium lasers, of whom the latter played the most prominent role . Thulium:YAG vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) has been found to be a size-independent, well tolerated and effective procedure with low-perioperative morbidity and excellent long-term results [6–8]. The durability of ThuVEP was demonstrated by a prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-reduction rate of 77.1% at 5-year follow-up . The completeness of adenoma removal by ThuVEP was currently confirmed by a retrospective matched-paired comparison between ThuVEP and thulium vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) : the PSA-reduction was significantly higher after ThuVEP compared with ThuVARP (78.9 vs. 23.4%) at 24-month follow-up, which may lead to a higher reoperation rate after ThuVARP during long-term follow-up.
In a prospective analysis of the learning curves of the ThuVEP technique, the safety and efficacy was confirmed during the initial learning course of the procedure giving reasonable efficiency after 8–16 procedures using a structured mentorship programme . The use of the thulium:YAG laser with its physical properties might be the reason for the short learning curve: contrary to the pulsed holmium:YAG laser, the energy of the thulium:YAG laser is delivered in a continuous wave mode and offers a high ablation capacity combined with an excellent hemostasis and coagulation, to perform a smooth incision or tissue vaporization. This specification allows an uncomplicated correction of the layer of enucleation during ThuVEP combined with maximum safety because of excellent tissue vaporization, avoids poor outcome and may facilitate to become adapt with the ThuVEP technique [10,11].
A prospective randomized trial comparing HoLEP with ThuVEP in patients with significantly enlarged prostates (prostate volume 80 ml) was currently published. The perioperative morbidity was low and comparable between ThuVEP and HoLEP . Both procedures led to equivalent, satisfactory micturition improvement, PSA (4.14 vs. 0.71 μg/l) and prostate volume (80 vs. 16 ml) drop at 6-month follow-up . These results were recently confirmed by a matched-paired analysis of these procedures .
ThuVEP is now a well established procedure giving equivalent and satisfactory micturition improvement with low-perioperative morbidity and durable micturition improvement comparable with HoLEP. It is not just another ‘me too’ technique mimicking HoLEP. The continuous wave thulium:YAG laser offers a high ablation capacity combined with excellent hemostasis and coagulation. This technical feature allows an uncomplicated correction of the layer of enucleation during ThuVEP changing from enucleation to vaporization or vaporesection, which is beneficial during the learning course. This might also be an advantage in patients with prostate cancer, when clear layers between adenoma and prostatic pseudocapsule are not identifiable. Contrary to GreenLight enucleation of the prostate (GreenLEP), a bare-ended laser fibre is used in ThuVEP, which facilitates the separation of the adenoma from the pseudocapsule compared with the use of a side-fire laser fibre in GreenLEP. The cost for re-usable laser fibres for ThuVEP or HoLEP are below the 20€ border, whereas the single-use laser fibre for GreenLEP costs above 1000€. This increases the costs of the GreenLEP procedure significantly compared with HoLEP or ThuVEP. In addition, this is contradictory to the past marketing strategy for the GreenLight laser: it was made for pure (incomplete) vaporization of the prostate (for retreatment during intermediate to long-term follow-up) with single-use laser fibres and advertised for that purpose over a decade. Finally, although different techniques for transurethral endoscopic enucleation of the prostate with different energy sources exist, the final goal of endoscopic enucleation remains the same : complete removal of the prostatic adenoma .
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
1. 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 2015; 67:1066–1096.
2. Fraundorfer MR, Gilling PJ. Holmium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol 1998; 33:69–72.
3. 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; 117:495–499.
4. Kampantais S, Dimopoulos P, Tasleem A, et al. Assessing the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP). A systematic review. Urology 2018; 120:9–22.
5. Gilling PJ. Laser enucleation is increasingly becoming the standard of care for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia of all sizes. Eur Urol 2013; 63:868–869.
6. Bach T, Netsch C, Pohlmann L, et al. Thulium:YAG vapoenucleation in large volume prostates. J Urol 2011; 186:2323–2327.
7. 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.
8. Gross AJ, Orywal AK, Becker B, et al. Five-year outcomes of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction. World J Urol 2017; 35:1585–1593.
9. Becker B, Buttice S, Magno C, et al. Thulium vaporesection of the prostate and thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate: a retrospective bicentric matched-paired comparison with 24-month follow-up. Urol Int 2018; 100:105–111.
10. 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.
11. Saredi G, Pirola GM, Pacchetti A, et al. Evaluation of the learning curve for thulium laser enucleation of the prostate with the aid of a simulator tool but without tutoring: comparison of two surgeons with different levels of endoscopic experience. BMC Urol 2015; 15:49.
12. Netsch C, Becker B, Tiburtius C, et al. A prospective, randomized trial comparing thulium vapoenucleation with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction: perioperative safety and efficacy. World J Urol 2017; 35:1913–1921.
13. Becker B, Herrmann TRW, Gross AJ, Netsch C. Thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of large volume prostates: preliminary 6-month safety and efficacy results of a prospective randomized trial. World J Urol 2018; 36:1663–1671.
14. Pirola GM, Saredi G, Codas Duarte R, et al. Holmium laser versus thulium laser enucleation of the prostate: a matched-pair analysis from two centers. Ther Adv Urol 2018; 10:223–233.
15. Herrmann TR. Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation. World J Urol 2016; 34:1353–1355.