Morcellation Efficiency in Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Oscillating Morcellator Outperforms Reciprocating Morcellator With no Apparent Learning Curve

Sean McAdams, Rafael Nunez-Nateras, Christopher J. Martin, Stephen Cha, Mitchell R Humphreys

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To compare the morcellation efficiency of the Wolf Piranha oscillating morcellator with the Lumenis VersaCut reciprocating morcellator. Materials and Methods After institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. The first 41 cases of HoLEP with morcellation performed with the oscillating morcellator were matched by weight of resected tissue to 41 control patients from our historic data set who underwent morcellation with the reciprocating system. The primary outcome of interest was morcellation efficiency. We also evaluated surgeon experience level to assess for a learning curve with the oscillating morcellator. Results The 41 patients from each group were comparable in terms of age, prostate size, continuation of aspirin, and catheter status. The oscillating morcellation efficiency was nearly double that of the reciprocating morcellator (8.6 g/min [range: 3.0-18.3] vs 3.8 g/min [range: 0.9-10.1], P <.0001). Mean resected weights for cases with the oscillating and reciprocating instruments were 69 g (range: 17-224 g) and 69 g (range: 17-213 g), respectively (P = .9). The total operative time and complication rates did not significantly differ. For the oscillating system, morcellation efficiency for cases performed by staff alone was 9.8 g/min compared with 8.1 g/min when trainees were involved (P = .2), and there was no correlation between morcellation efficiency and number of cases performed (R = 0.01). Conclusion The oscillating morcellation system resulted in a morcellation efficiency double that of the reciprocating system for tissue retrieval after HoLEP. Achieving efficiency with the oscillating system was not associated with a significant learning curve and was not impacted by trainee involvement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)173-177
Number of pages5
JournalUrology
Volume106
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2017

Fingerprint

Learning Curve
Solid-State Lasers
Prostate
Efficiency
Characiformes
Morcellation
Weights and Measures
Research Ethics Committees
Prostatic Hyperplasia
Operative Time
Aspirin
Catheters

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Morcellation Efficiency in Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate : Oscillating Morcellator Outperforms Reciprocating Morcellator With no Apparent Learning Curve. / McAdams, Sean; Nunez-Nateras, Rafael; Martin, Christopher J.; Cha, Stephen; Humphreys, Mitchell R.

In: Urology, Vol. 106, 01.08.2017, p. 173-177.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f7f899f51b2947a4a08b3c1fcc038ae8,
title = "Morcellation Efficiency in Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Oscillating Morcellator Outperforms Reciprocating Morcellator With no Apparent Learning Curve",
abstract = "Objective To compare the morcellation efficiency of the Wolf Piranha oscillating morcellator with the Lumenis VersaCut reciprocating morcellator. Materials and Methods After institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. The first 41 cases of HoLEP with morcellation performed with the oscillating morcellator were matched by weight of resected tissue to 41 control patients from our historic data set who underwent morcellation with the reciprocating system. The primary outcome of interest was morcellation efficiency. We also evaluated surgeon experience level to assess for a learning curve with the oscillating morcellator. Results The 41 patients from each group were comparable in terms of age, prostate size, continuation of aspirin, and catheter status. The oscillating morcellation efficiency was nearly double that of the reciprocating morcellator (8.6 g/min [range: 3.0-18.3] vs 3.8 g/min [range: 0.9-10.1], P <.0001). Mean resected weights for cases with the oscillating and reciprocating instruments were 69 g (range: 17-224 g) and 69 g (range: 17-213 g), respectively (P = .9). The total operative time and complication rates did not significantly differ. For the oscillating system, morcellation efficiency for cases performed by staff alone was 9.8 g/min compared with 8.1 g/min when trainees were involved (P = .2), and there was no correlation between morcellation efficiency and number of cases performed (R = 0.01). Conclusion The oscillating morcellation system resulted in a morcellation efficiency double that of the reciprocating system for tissue retrieval after HoLEP. Achieving efficiency with the oscillating system was not associated with a significant learning curve and was not impacted by trainee involvement.",
author = "Sean McAdams and Rafael Nunez-Nateras and Martin, {Christopher J.} and Stephen Cha and Humphreys, {Mitchell R}",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2017.05.018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "106",
pages = "173--177",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Morcellation Efficiency in Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate

T2 - Oscillating Morcellator Outperforms Reciprocating Morcellator With no Apparent Learning Curve

AU - McAdams, Sean

AU - Nunez-Nateras, Rafael

AU - Martin, Christopher J.

AU - Cha, Stephen

AU - Humphreys, Mitchell R

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Objective To compare the morcellation efficiency of the Wolf Piranha oscillating morcellator with the Lumenis VersaCut reciprocating morcellator. Materials and Methods After institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. The first 41 cases of HoLEP with morcellation performed with the oscillating morcellator were matched by weight of resected tissue to 41 control patients from our historic data set who underwent morcellation with the reciprocating system. The primary outcome of interest was morcellation efficiency. We also evaluated surgeon experience level to assess for a learning curve with the oscillating morcellator. Results The 41 patients from each group were comparable in terms of age, prostate size, continuation of aspirin, and catheter status. The oscillating morcellation efficiency was nearly double that of the reciprocating morcellator (8.6 g/min [range: 3.0-18.3] vs 3.8 g/min [range: 0.9-10.1], P <.0001). Mean resected weights for cases with the oscillating and reciprocating instruments were 69 g (range: 17-224 g) and 69 g (range: 17-213 g), respectively (P = .9). The total operative time and complication rates did not significantly differ. For the oscillating system, morcellation efficiency for cases performed by staff alone was 9.8 g/min compared with 8.1 g/min when trainees were involved (P = .2), and there was no correlation between morcellation efficiency and number of cases performed (R = 0.01). Conclusion The oscillating morcellation system resulted in a morcellation efficiency double that of the reciprocating system for tissue retrieval after HoLEP. Achieving efficiency with the oscillating system was not associated with a significant learning curve and was not impacted by trainee involvement.

AB - Objective To compare the morcellation efficiency of the Wolf Piranha oscillating morcellator with the Lumenis VersaCut reciprocating morcellator. Materials and Methods After institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. The first 41 cases of HoLEP with morcellation performed with the oscillating morcellator were matched by weight of resected tissue to 41 control patients from our historic data set who underwent morcellation with the reciprocating system. The primary outcome of interest was morcellation efficiency. We also evaluated surgeon experience level to assess for a learning curve with the oscillating morcellator. Results The 41 patients from each group were comparable in terms of age, prostate size, continuation of aspirin, and catheter status. The oscillating morcellation efficiency was nearly double that of the reciprocating morcellator (8.6 g/min [range: 3.0-18.3] vs 3.8 g/min [range: 0.9-10.1], P <.0001). Mean resected weights for cases with the oscillating and reciprocating instruments were 69 g (range: 17-224 g) and 69 g (range: 17-213 g), respectively (P = .9). The total operative time and complication rates did not significantly differ. For the oscillating system, morcellation efficiency for cases performed by staff alone was 9.8 g/min compared with 8.1 g/min when trainees were involved (P = .2), and there was no correlation between morcellation efficiency and number of cases performed (R = 0.01). Conclusion The oscillating morcellation system resulted in a morcellation efficiency double that of the reciprocating system for tissue retrieval after HoLEP. Achieving efficiency with the oscillating system was not associated with a significant learning curve and was not impacted by trainee involvement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020913808&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020913808&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2017.05.018

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2017.05.018

M3 - Article

C2 - 28532766

AN - SCOPUS:85020913808

VL - 106

SP - 173

EP - 177

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

ER -