Towards optimizing prostate tissue retrieval following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): Assessment of two morcellators and review of literature

Authors

  • Ahmed M. Elshal Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University
  • Ramy Mekkawy Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University
  • Mahmoud Laymon Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University
  • Ahmed El-Assmy Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University
  • Ahmed R. El-Nahas Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3035

Keywords:

Prostate, Prostatectomy, Enucleation, Morcellation, Laser, Transurethral

Abstract

Introduction: We assess different approaches to retrieve the enucleated adenoma after transurethral enucleation of the prostate, particularly using the holmium laser.

Methods: A retrospective review through our prospectively maintained database was performed looking for safety and efficacy of two morcellators. The enucleation phase of the holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) was classically performed followed by retrieval of the intravesical adenoma using either the Piranha (Wolf Inc., Knittlingen, Germany) or VersaCut (Lumenis) morcellator. A PubMed-MEDLINE search was conducted for all transurethral enucleation procedures and relevant data regarding methods of prostate tissue retrieval were extracted.

Results: Strictly limiting the study to 3 reusable blades with each morcellator, we performed 67 and 55 consecutive procedures with Piranha and VersaCut, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two morcellators regarding perioperative complications, apart from 5 bladder mucosal injuries with the VersaCut (9%). Furthermore, there were similar retrieved tissue weight, mechanical problems-rate, catheter-time and hospital-stay in both morcellators. However, the Piranha morcellator needed significantly less morcellation-time, needed to use cold loop to remove non-morcellated pieces and to score the adenoma by laser for better bite of the adenoma, and had a higher median morcellation-rate 6.2 (rate: 2.8–12) g/min. Despite little reporting on morcellation, we had data on the tissue retrieval rate (2.6 to 6.5 g/min with Piranha and 1.9 to 11 g/min with VersaCut. Furthermore, bladder mucosal injury was reported in 1.4% and 0.7 to 5.7% with Piranha and VersaCut, respectively; bladder perforation with VersaCut was experienced in about 0.1 to 1.5% of patients. Our study is limited by its non-randomization.

Conclusion: The Piranha morcellator was the most efficient and safe way to retrieve tissue after a transurethral enucleation of a prostate adenoma.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2015-09-09

How to Cite

Elshal, A. M., Mekkawy, R., Laymon, M., El-Assmy, A., & El-Nahas, A. R. (2015). Towards optimizing prostate tissue retrieval following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP): Assessment of two morcellators and review of literature. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 9(9-10), E618–25. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3035

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 9-10 (2015): CUAJ September

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.