TY - JOUR
T1 - Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate after Prostatic Urethral Lift Surgery
T2 - Feasibility and Technical Considerations from a Multi-Institutional Case Series
AU - McAdams, Sean
AU - Funk, Joel T.
AU - Navetta, Andrew F.
AU - El Tayeb, Marawan M.
AU - Humphreys, Mitchell R.
PY - 2017/8
Y1 - 2017/8
N2 - Introduction and Objective: Ten percent of patients undergoing prostatic urethral lift (PUL) require repeat surgical treatment within 3 years. We describe the feasibility and considerations of performing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) as a salvage therapy after previous PUL. Methods: Men who had undergone HoLEP after PUL were retrospectively identified from three institutions with surgeons experienced in HoLEP. Subjects were characterized by age, time from PUL procedure (months) to HoLEP surgery, indication for retreatment, and pre-operative prostate volume by ultrasound. Outcomes of interest included enucleation time, morcellation time, morcellator type, weight of tissue resected, and Clavien complications. We also summarize findings related to the location of PUL device implants, and the effect of the implants on the enucleation and morcellation portions of the procedure. Results: From December 15, 2015 to October 31, 2016, seven men aged 51-78 years underwent HoLEP at a median of 8.6 months (range 3-18) after PUL. The median prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound was 80 cm3 (range 56-160 cm3). For the 7 patients, 6 out of the 22 device implants were found in aberrant locations. Auxiliary maneuvers were required in five cases. Morcellation devices tended to jam with each implant, requiring a pause for withdrawal of the morcellator and manual removal from the blade or requiring grasper retrieval of device components. There were no Clavien complications. Conclusions: HoLEP can be performed safely and effectively post-PUL; however, device implants may be found in areas other than the intended location, and morcellation of the adenoma tissue is complicated by metallic implants of the PUL device.
AB - Introduction and Objective: Ten percent of patients undergoing prostatic urethral lift (PUL) require repeat surgical treatment within 3 years. We describe the feasibility and considerations of performing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) as a salvage therapy after previous PUL. Methods: Men who had undergone HoLEP after PUL were retrospectively identified from three institutions with surgeons experienced in HoLEP. Subjects were characterized by age, time from PUL procedure (months) to HoLEP surgery, indication for retreatment, and pre-operative prostate volume by ultrasound. Outcomes of interest included enucleation time, morcellation time, morcellator type, weight of tissue resected, and Clavien complications. We also summarize findings related to the location of PUL device implants, and the effect of the implants on the enucleation and morcellation portions of the procedure. Results: From December 15, 2015 to October 31, 2016, seven men aged 51-78 years underwent HoLEP at a median of 8.6 months (range 3-18) after PUL. The median prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound was 80 cm3 (range 56-160 cm3). For the 7 patients, 6 out of the 22 device implants were found in aberrant locations. Auxiliary maneuvers were required in five cases. Morcellation devices tended to jam with each implant, requiring a pause for withdrawal of the morcellator and manual removal from the blade or requiring grasper retrieval of device components. There were no Clavien complications. Conclusions: HoLEP can be performed safely and effectively post-PUL; however, device implants may be found in areas other than the intended location, and morcellation of the adenoma tissue is complicated by metallic implants of the PUL device.
KW - HoLEP
KW - holmium laser enucleation
KW - prostatic urethral lift
KW - salvage therapy
KW - urolift
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027100773&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027100773&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/end.2017.0224
DO - 10.1089/end.2017.0224
M3 - Article
C2 - 28586247
AN - SCOPUS:85027100773
SN - 0892-7790
VL - 31
SP - 774
EP - 779
JO - Journal of Endourology
JF - Journal of Endourology
IS - 8
ER -