V5-01: Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate as Retreatment after UroLift Device: Feasibility and Techn

V5-01: Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate as Retreatment after UroLift Device: Feasibility and Technical Considerations

Video

INTRODUCTION

In this video we demonstrate the feasibility of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for retreatment of persistent lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after previous treatment with the UroLift device. Technical considerations with regards to both enucleation and morcellation of resected tissue are discussed. Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) affects millions of men worldwide. The UroLift system (NeoTract Inc., Pleasanton, CA) was recently introduced as a means to perform prostatic urethral lift (PUL) procedure for lateral lobe hypertrophy in patients with obstructive voiding symptoms. Urolift has been associated with a retreatment rate of 7% at 2 years and 14% at 4 years. Retreatment with TURP, photovaporization of the prostate and repeat UroLift has been described without notable issue, but retreatment with HoLEP has not yet been described.

METHODS

We included two patients who had undergone PUL with UroLift system at outside institutions and presented with recurrent LUTS. Patients were evaluated by cystoscopy, uroflowmetry, transrectal ultrasound of the prostate, and urodynamics to define the etiology of their urinary symptoms and determine appropriate therapy. HoLEP was performed under general anesthesia as previously described. Morcellation of the resected adenoma was performed with the VersaCut reciprocating morcellator (Lumenis Inc, Santa Clara, CA).

RESULTS

Enucleation was successfully completed in both patients. Monofilament sutures of the Urolift device were easily visualized and transected with the holmium laser. At the bladder neck, both patients were unexpectedly found to have the outer nitinol tab portions of UroLift devices located within the capsule of the prostate, rather than in the intended extracapsular location. Auxiliary maneuvers were required for removal of these nitinol tabs. The inner stainless steel portions of the UroLift device were encountered during morcellation of the resected adenoma. In each instance, the metal tabs became lodged in the reciprocating blades of the morcellator, requiring withdrawal of the morcellator instrument and manual removal of the tab from the morcellator blade. This resulted in brief disruptions in the procedure. There were no operative complications.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, we present the first description of HoLEP with morcellation of adenoma tissue after previous prostatic urethral lift surgery with the UroLift device. HoLEP can be performed safely and effectively post Urolift, however morcellation of the adenoma tissue is complicated by the metallic implants of the Urolift device.

Funding: none