No abstract

ObjectiveTo compare and evaluate the safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and simple prostatectomy for large prostate burdens, as discussion and debate continue about the optimal surgical intervention for this common pathology.Materials and methodsA systematic search was conducted for studies comparing HoLEP with simple prostatectomy [open (OP), robot-assisted, laparoscopic] using a sensitive strategy and in accordance with Cochrane collaboration guidelines. Primary parameters of interest were objective measurements including maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR), and subjective outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes of interest included volume of tissue retrieved, catheterisation time, hospital stay, blood loss and serum sodium decrease. Data on baseline characteristics and complications were also collected. Where possible, comparable data were combined and meta-analysis was conducted.ResultsIn all, 310 articles were identified and after screening abstracts (114) and full manuscripts (14), three randomised studies (263 patients) were included, which met our pre-defined inclusion criteria. All these compared HoLEP with OP. The mean transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume was 113.9 mL in the HoLEP group and 119.4 mL in the OP group. There was no statistically significant difference in Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QoL at 12 and 24 months between the two interventions. OP was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.01) and greater tissue retrieved (P < 0.001). However, with HoLEP there was significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), patients had a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.03), and were catheterised for significantly fewer hours (P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the total number of complications recorded amongst HoLEP and OP (P = 0.80).ConclusionThe results of the meta-analysis have shown that HoLEP and OP possess similar overall efficacy profiles for both objective and subjective disease status outcome measures. This review shows these improvements persist to at least the 24 month follow-up point. Further randomised studies are warranted to fully determine the optimal surgical intervention for large prostate burdens.

Background After radical prostatectomy (RP), erectile dysfunction, often necessitating the need for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion, and urinary incontinence and climacturia can ensue. Aim To assess the efficacy and safety of the mini-jupette, a mesh used to approximate the medial aspects of the 2 corporotomies at the time of IPP insertion, for the management of climacturia and urine leakage in patients with minimal incontinence. Methods We conducted a pilot multicenter study of patients with post-RP erectile dysfunction and climacturia and/or mild urinary incontinence (≤2 pads/day [ppd]) undergoing IPP insertion with concomitant placement of a mini-jupette graft. Outcomes Pre- and postoperative erectile function, continence and climacturia, and overall surgical outcomes were assessed. Results 38 patients underwent the mini-jupette procedure. The mean age of the population was 65.3 years (SD = 7.7). 30 had post-RP climacturia and 32 patients had post-RP incontinence (mean = 1.3 ppd, SD = 0.8). 31 patients received Coloplast Titan, 4 received AMS 700 LGX, and 3 received AMS 700 CX IPPs. Mean corporotomy size was 2.9 cm (SD = 1.0). Mean graft measurements were 3.2 cm (SD = 0.9) for width, 3.3 cm (SD = 1.3) for length, and 11.0 cm2 (SD = 5.1) for surface area. At a mean follow-up of 5.1 months (SD = 6.9), there were 5 postoperative complications (13.2%) of which 4 required explantation. Climacturia and incontinence were subjectively improved in 92.8% and 85.7%, respectively. Mean ppd decreased by 1.3 postoperatively. Clinical Implications The Andrianne mini-jupette is a feasible adjunct to IPP placement that can be used for subsets of patients with post-RP climacturia and/or minimal incontinence. Strengths and Limitations Strengths of this study include the novel nature of this intervention, the multi-institutional nature of the study, and the promising results demonstrated. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the heterogeneity of the techniques and grafts used by different surgeons involved. Conclusion Longer follow-up and larger patient cohorts are needed to confirm the long-term safety and benefits of this intervention.

Penile calciphylaxis is a rare phenomenon of penile necrosis observed in patients with hemodialysis-dependent end-stage renal failure. Multiple treatments have been proposed including conservative management, surgical debridement and penectomy; yet, the prognosis remains extremely poor. Here, we describe a patient with protracted resolution of dry gangrene of the glans, which failed conservative management of wound care and pain management. Radiological studies revealed extensive calcification of abdominal aorta and branching vessels including the penile arteries. Due to intolerable pain, the patient required total penectomy. Earlier surgical intervention guided by findings on radiological studies may improve quality of life in this population.

Ischemic priapism is a urological emergency that has been associated with long-standing and irreversible adverse effects on erectile function. Studies have demonstrated a linear relationship between the duration of critically ischemic episodes and the subsequent development of corporal fibrosis and irreversible erectile function loss. Placement of a penile prosthesis is a well-established therapeutic option for the management of erectile dysfunction secondary to ischemic priapism, and will be the focus of this review. Review of the current literature demonstrates a growing utilization of penile prostheses in the treatment of erectile dysfunction secondary to ischemic priapism. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of randomized-controlled trials describing the use of prosthesis in ischemic priapism. As a result, there is a lack of consensus regarding the type of prosthesis (malleable vs. inflatable), timing of surgery (acute vs. delayed), and anticipated complications for each approach. Both types of prostheses yielded comparable complication rates, but the inflatable penile prosthesis have higher satisfaction rates. Acute treatment of priapism was associated with increased risk of prosthetic infection, and could potentially cause psychological trauma, whereas delayed implantation was associated with greater corporal fibrosis, loss of penile length, and increased technical difficulty of implantation. The paucity of high-level evidence fuels the ongoing discussion of optimal use and timing of penile prosthesis implantation. Current guidance is based on consensus expert opinion derived from small, retrospective studies. Until more robust data is available, a patient-centered approach and joint decision-making between the patient and his urologist is recommended.