Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Urology. 2018 Nov;121:51-57. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.045. Epub 2018 Jul 24.

A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach-Initial Results.

Author information

1
Sechenov University, Research Institute for Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Russian Federation. Electronic address: dvenikeev@gmail.com.
2
Sechenov University, Research Institute for Uronephrology and Reproductive Health, Russian Federation.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the differences in the learning curve associated with different techniques of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Ninety patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups (30 patients in each): HoLEP, ThuFLEP or MEP. Inclusion criteria for the study included prostate volume <80 cc, IPSS > 20, or Qmax < 10. The EEPs were performed by 3 surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate. Assignment of surgeons to surgical technique was also randomized. None of the surgeons had prior experience in EEP.

RESULTS:

ThuFLEP was slightly superior (with no significant difference [P > .05]) to HoLEP and MEP in terms of overall enucleation rate-1.0 g/min vs 0.8 g/min and 0.7 g/min, respectively. We observed similar enucleation rates at the initial stages of training (first 20 surgeries) with insignificant increase in ThuFLEP efficiency. At next 10 surgeries ThuFLEP and HoLEP efficiency were higher than of MEP (P < .001) without significant difference between techniques of laser EEP (P = .07).

CONCLUSION:

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate can be adopted safely and effectively within 30 surgeries if the technique is learned with a mentoring approach. EEP is shown to be safe and effective even in the initial stages of learning. Laser EEP (HoLEP, ThuFLEP) appears to lend itself to quicker adaptation compared MEP.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center