Surgical methods for benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment. Literature review
https://doi.org/10.17238/2072-3180-2022-71-78
Abstract
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common conditions affecting middle-aged men. Up to 15–25% of men aged 50 to 65 years have symptoms of the lower urinary tract (LUP), which are usually associated with benign growth of prostate tissue. Although LUTs are often associated with BPH, LUTs can also be caused by various unrelated syndromes, such as heart failure, urinary tract infections, and diabetes mellitus. This article provides a review of publications on the topic of modern and current methods of treatment of prostate hyperplasia, as well as an analysis of their effectiveness and safety. The emergence of a large number of surgical methods for the treatment of prostate hyperplasia predetermined the search for the most effective and safe of them. The data of a prospective, comparative study conducted by us at the Department of Urology of the Moscow State Medical University named after A.I. Evdokimov on the basis of the State Medical University named after S.I. Spasokukotsky allowed us to summarize that all the methods of surgical treatment of BPH presented in this article have demonstrated their effectiveness, but, at the same time, only the methods of tulium enucleation and TURP allow the operation to be performed endoscopically, preserving the integrity of the skin, safely and radically.
Supporting agencies: The study was conducted within the framework of the project of the Moscow Department of Health "Scientific Laboratory "Moscow Polyclinic".
About the Authors
A. A. Shiryaev
A.I. Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry; City Clinical Hospital n.a. S.I. Spasokukotsky
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Shiryaev Arseniy Alexandrovich – Department of Urology Resident
127473, Moscow
127206, Moscow
A. V. Govorov
A.I. Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry; City Clinical Hospital n.a. S.I. Spasokukotsky
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Govorov Alexander Viktorovich – Dr.Med.Sci., Professor at the Department of Urology
127473, Moscow
127206, Moscow
A. O. Vasiliev
A.I. Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry; City Clinical Hospital n.a. S.I. Spasokukotsky; Research Institute for Healthcare Organization and Medical Management
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vasiliev Alexander Olegovich – PHD, assistant of the Department of Urology
127473, Moscow
127206, Moscow
115088, Moscow
V. V. Solovyov
Research Institute for Healthcare Organization and Medical Management; City Polyclinic № 170
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Solovyov Vladimir Viktorovich – PHD, doctor urologist
115088, Moscow
117545, Moscow
D. Yu. Pushkar
A.I. Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry; City Clinical Hospital n.a. S.I. Spasokukotsky
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Pushkar Dmitry Yuryevich – Dr.Med.Sci., Prof., Head of the Department of Urology
127473, Moscow
127206, Moscow
References
1. Mahon J., McVary K. New alternative treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. In: Minimally Invasive Urology: An Essential Clinical Guide to Endourology, Laparoscopy, LESS and Robotics, 2nd edn, Best SL, Nakada SY (Eds): Springer, 2020.
2. Foster H., Dahm P., Kohler T. Surgical Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA Guideline Amendment 2019. J Urol, 2019, № 202, pp. 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000319
3. Wei J., Calhoun E., Jacobsen S. Urologic diseases in America project: benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol, 2005, № 173, pp. 1256–1261. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000155709.37840.fe
4. Welliver C., Feinstein L., Ward J. Trends in Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Associated with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, 2004 to 2013: the Urologic Diseases in America Project. J Urol, 2020, № 203, pp. 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000499
5. McVary K., Roehrborn C., Avins A.L. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol, 2011, № 185, pр. 1793–1803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.074
6. Jacobsen S., Jacobson D., Girman C. Natural history of prostatism: risk factors for acute urinary retention. J Urol, 1997, № 158, pp. 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64508-7
7. Lightner D., Wymer K., Sanchez J., Kavoussi L. Best Practice Statement on Urologic Procedures and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis. J Urol, 2020, № 203, pp. 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000509
8. Forrest J., Clemens J., Finamore P. AUA Best Practice Statement for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing urologic surgery. J Urol, 2009, № 181, pp. 1170–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.12.027
9. Michalski W., Poniatowska G., Jonska-Gmyrek J. Venous thromboprophylaxis in urological cancer surgery. Med Oncol, 2019, № 37, pp. 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-019-1331-8
10. Borth C., Nickel J. Management of spontaneous prostate related bleeding. AUA: Update Series, 2006
11. Optimizing Outcomes in Urologic Surgery. American Urological Association: White Paper, 2018.
12. Fwu C., Eggers P., Kirkali Z. Change in sexual function in men with lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia associated with long-term treatment with doxazosin, finasteride and combined therapy. J Urol., 2014, № 191, pp. 1828–1834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.014
13. American Urological Association (AUA). Guideline. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia/ Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, 2019.
14. Issa M. Technological advances in transurethral resection of the prostate: bipolar versus monopolar TURP. J Endourol, 2008, № 22, pp. 1589–1595. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0192
15. Omar M., Lam T., Alexander C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of bipolar compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). BJU Int, 2014, № 113, pp. 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12281
16. Cornu J., Ahyai S., Bachmann A. 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, pp. 1066–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.017
17. Nuhoğlu B., Balci M., Aydin M. The role of bipolar transurethral vaporization in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Int., 2011, № 87, pp. 400–404. https://doi.org/10.1159/000329797
18. Geavlete B., Georgescu D., Multescu R. Bipolar plasma vaporization vs monopolar and bipolar TURP-A prospective, randomized, long-term comparison. Urology, 2011, № 78, pp. 930–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.03.072
19. Lourenco T., Shaw M., Fraser C. The clinical effectiveness of transurethral incision of the prostate: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. World J Urol, 2010, № 28, pp. 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-009-0496-8
20. Reich O., Gratzke C., Stief C. Techniques and long-term results of surgical procedures for BPH. Eur Urol, 2006, № 49, pp. 970–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.072
21. Lee D., Rieken M., Halpern J. Laser Vaporization of the Prostate With the 180-W XPS-Greenlight Laser in Patients with Ongoing Platelet Aggregation Inhibition and Oral Anticoagulation. Urology, 2016, № 91, pp. 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.01.021
22. Brassetti A., Nunzio C., Delongchamps N. Green light vaporization of the prostate: is it an adult technique? Minerva Urol Nefrol, 2017, № 69, pp. 109–118. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02791-0
23. Bachmann A., Tubaro A., Barber N. 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, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.040
24. Thomas J., Tubaro A., Barber N. A Multicenter Randomized Noninferiority Trial Comparing GreenLight-XPS Laser Vaporization of the Prostate and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Obstruction: Two-yr Outcomes of the GOLIATH Study. Eur Urol., 2016, № 69, pp. 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.054
25. Bachmann A., Tubaro A., Barber N. A European multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing 180 W GreenLight XPS laser vaporization and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 12-month results of the GOLIATH study. J Urol., 2015, № 193, 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.001
26. Kuntz R.M., Lehrich K., Ahyai S.A. 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., 2008, № 53, pp. 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.036
27. Kuntz R.M, Ahyai S., Lehrich K., Fayad A. Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 patients. J Urol., 2004, № 172, pp. 1012–1016. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000136218.11998.9e
28. Foster H.E., Barry M.J., Dahm P. Surgical Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA Guideline. J Urol., 2018, № 200, pp. 612–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.048
29. Zhong J., Feng Z., Peng Y., Liang H. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Efficacy and Safety Following Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate and Transurethral Resection of Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Urology, 2019, № 131, pp. 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.03.034
30. Hashim H., Worthington J., Abrams P. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate for men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention (UNBLOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2020, 396, pp. 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30537-7
31. Gilling P., Anderson P., Tan A. Aquablation of the Prostate for Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 1-Year Results. J Urol., 2017, № 197, pp. 1565–1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.056.
32. Gilling P.J., Barber N., Bidair M. Randomized Controlled Trial of Aquablation versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: One-year Outcomes. Urology, 2019, № 125, pp. 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.002
33. Gilling P., Barber N., Bidair M. WATER: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Aquablation vs Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. J Urol., 2018, № 199, pp. 1252– 1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.065
34. Hwang E.C., Jung J.H., Borofsky M. Aquablation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev., 2019, № 2, рр. CD013143. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013143.pub2
35. Hoffman R.M., Monga M., Elliott S.P. Microwave thermotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012, рр. CD004135. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004135.pub3
36. Schelin S., Geertsen U., Walter S. Feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP/prostate enucleation surgery in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and persistent urinary retention: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Urology, 2006, № 68, pp. 795–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.05.020
37. Wagrell L., Schelin S., Nordling J. Feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH--a randomized controlled multicenter study. Urology, 2002, № 60, pp. 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01740-5
38. Mattiasson A., Wagrell L., Schelin S. Five-year follow-up of feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH: a prospective randomized multicenter study. Urology, 2007, № 69, pp. 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.08.1115
39. Zhang B., Wu G., Chen C. Combination of channel-TURP and ILC versus standard TURP or ILC for elderly with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized prospective trial. Urol Int., 2011, № 87, pp. 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1159/000331500
40. Geavlete B., Bulai C., Ene C. Bipolar vaporization, resection, and enucleation versus open prostatectomy: optimal treatment alternatives in large prostate cases? J Endourol., 2015, № 29, pp. 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0493
41. Simforoosh N., Abdi H., Kashi A. Open prostatectomy versus transurethral resection of the prostate, where are we standing in the new era? A randomized controlled trial. Urol J, 2010, № 7, pp. 262–269.
42. Xie J., Tan Y., Wang F.L. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic adenomectomy (Madigan) versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia greater than 80 ml: complications and functional outcomes after 3-year follow-up. J Endourol., 2014, № 28, pp. 353– 359. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0374
Review
For citations:
Shiryaev A.A., Govorov A.V., Vasiliev A.O., Solovyov V.V., Pushkar D.Yu. Surgical methods for benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment. Literature review. Moscow Surgical Journal. 2022;(5):71-79. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17238/2072-3180-2022-71-78
Views:
259
Email this article 