Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for treatment for large-sized benign prostate hyperplasia; is it a realistic endourologic alternative in developing country?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the functional outcome and cumulative health-resource-related cost of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in comparison with transvesical open prostatectomy (TVOP) in a developing country.

Methods

Matching of 92 HoLEP and 91 TVOP procedures was performed using resected prostate tissue weight as a sole matching criterion. Safety, efficacy, and accordingly health-related cost-efficiency of both procedures were statistically compared.

Results

Preoperative criteria and mean prostate size (166.7 ± 49.7, 161.4 ± 35.7 ml) were similar in HoLEP and TVOP, respectively; however, HoLEP treated more comorbid patients. Blood transfusion was 2.1 and 26.1 % after HoLEP and TVOP, respectively (P = 0.001). Median time to catheter removal and hospital stay was 2 days after HoLEP and 5 and 9 days, respectively, after TVOP (P < 0.001). On modified Clavien scale, grade per grade, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups apart from local wound complications in TVOP group. High-grade complications (≥ grade 3) were reported in 3.2 and 6.5 % in HoLEP and TVOP, respectively (P = 0.49). Resected prostate tissue weight was independently associated with high-grade periprocedure complications (OR[95 %CI] 1.22[1.02:1.49], P = 0.03). Last follow-up symptom score, peak urine flow rate, residual urine, % PSA reduction, and need for reoperation were comparable between the two groups. HoLEP costs the hospital in the first 3 months 4111.8EP (575US$) versus 4305.4EP (602US$) for TVOP (P = 0.09).

Conclusion

In high-volume hospital, HoLEP procedure seems to be equally safe and effective as TVOP with the advantages of minimally invasive procedures. Two years after adopting the technique, HoLEP equally costs the hospital as TVOP. Significant hospital cost savings are anticipated in subsequent cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oelke M, Descazeaud A, Emberton M, Gravas S, Michel MC, N’Dow J, Nordling J, de la Rosette JJ (2013) Guidelines on the management of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), incl. benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Eur Assoc Urol 12:42–44

    Google Scholar 

  2. Elshal Ahmed M, El-Nahas Ahmed R, Barakat Tamer S et al (2013) Transvesical open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the era of minimally invasive surgery: perioperative outcomes of a contemporary series. Arab J Urol 11:362

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gupta NP, Anand A (2009) Lasers are superfluous for the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the developing world. Indian J Urol 25:413

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fraundorfer MR, Gilling PJ (1998) Holmium: YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol 33:69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA (2008) 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 53:160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL et al (2011) Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 185(5):1793–1803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A et al (2015) 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 67(6):1066–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baazeem AS, Elmansy HM, Elhilali MM (2010) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: modified technical aspects. BJU Int 105:584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240:205

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Elshal AM, Elkoushy MA, El-Nahas AR et al (2015) 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 193(3):927–934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A et al (2008) Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 180:246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tubaro A, de Nunzio C (2006) The current role of open surgery in BPH. EAU-EBU Update Series 4:191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kuntz RM, Lehrich K (2002) Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transvesical open enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 gm: a randomized prospective trial of 120 patients. J Urol 168:1465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Krambeck AE, Handa SE, Lingeman JE (2010) Experience with more than 1,000 holmium laser prostate enucleations for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 183:1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Elshal AM, Elmansy HM, Elhilali MM (2012) Feasibility of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for recurrent/residual benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). BJU Int 110:E845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilling PJ, Wilson LC, King CJ et al (2012) 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 109:408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Naspro R, Suardi N, Salonia A et al (2006) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates >70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol 50:563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yin L, Teng J, Huang CJ et al (2013) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Endourol 27:604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ahmed M. Elshal and Ahmed El-Nahas are responsible for Protocol/project development; Ramy Mekkawy, Tamer S. Barakat, and Mohamed M. Elsaadany performed data collection or management; Ahmed El-Assmy carried out data analysis; Mahmoud Laymon, Ahmed R. El-Nahas, and Ahmed M. Elshal are responsible for manuscript writing/editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed M. Elshal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elshal, A.M., Mekkawy, R., Laymon, M. et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for treatment for large-sized benign prostate hyperplasia; is it a realistic endourologic alternative in developing country?. World J Urol 34, 399–405 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1639-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1639-8

Keywords

Navigation