Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common urinary disorders in elderly males. The symptoms of BPH include impaired physiological and functional well-being, which interferes with daily living.
At present, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard surgical treatment. However, the high rate of complications associated with TURP is a major drawback of this procedure.
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) was proven to be an effective surgical treatment for BPH with no prostate size limitation with adequate hemostasis, bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BPEP) has been introduced as an alternative energy source with a promising outcome with equal safety and efficacy
Enlarged prostate represents the most common cause of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in elderly men including irritative, obstructive urinary symptoms or even urinary retention that significantly affects the quality life (QoL).
Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) represents the standard surgical technique for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with a prostate size less than 80 ml. However, considerable morbidities are associated with larger sizes.
Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) has been recognized as a treatment option for large prostatic adenomas, since first described by Hiraoka et.al, in 1986, it started to gain popularity despite the long learning curve. Many studies have evaluated its efficacy against the gold standard open prostatectomy in large prostate size more than 80ml and showed its safety and efficacy.
EEP represents an anatomical surgical technique resembling a surgeon's finger in open prostatectomy where any energy source that provides adequate haemostasis could be used. Many studies concluded that EEP relies on the surgeon's skills rather than the energy source itself. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) was first described by Gilling in 1998 and was proven to be effective with no prostate size limitation with adequate haemostasis, recently it has been approved as a standard treatment for large prostatic adenoma, bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BPEP) has been introduced as an alternative energy source with a promising outcome with equal safety and efficacy.
Few studies evaluated both techniques, one study was done by Shoma et al. showing no statistical difference regarding safety and efficacy between both techniques, another study conducted by Enikeev et al. reported earlier recovery and catheter removal with HoLEP compared to BPEP. However, cost-effectiveness was never been evaluated before between both techniques especially in developing countries.
With such scarce information, the investigators aimed through this study to compare these two energy sources in the enucleation procedure of the prostate in terms of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness in the management of BPH in large prostatic adenoma more than 80 ml.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate | Experimental | Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate |
|
| bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate | Experimental | bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate in management of benign prostatic hyperplasia | Procedure | comparison between 2 energy sources of enucleation in management of benign prostatic hyperplasia, holmium laser versus bipolar energy source in trans-urethral enucleation of the prostate |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| operative time | form the beginning of endoscopic procedure till catheter insertion | 50-120 minutes |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Enucleation efficacy of HoLEP | Mean Enucleation time (HoLEP) in minutes divided by Mean resected volume in grams | 12 months |
| Enucleation efficacy of BEEP | Mean Enucleation time (BPEP) in minutes/ Mean resected volume in grams |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Men who are fit for surgery and need a surgical resection of the prostate larger than 80 ml including:
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients with:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ain Shams University Hospitals | Cairo | 11361 | Egypt |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Feb 15, 2020 | Feb 14, 2020 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011470 | Prostatic Hyperplasia |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011469 | Prostatic Diseases |
| D005832 | Genital Diseases, Male |
| D000091662 | Genital Diseases |
| D000091642 | Urogenital Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
patients, data collector, and the statistician all were blinded to the type of intervention that was used in each group.
|
| 12 months |
| Mean energy in (HoLEP) in joules | Mean energy in (HoLEP) in joules | intra-operative finding |
| irrigation fluid | Average Irrigation fluid used in each group in liters | intra-operative finding |
| catheter removal time | postoperative time till catheter removal | 1-7 days |
| resected volume | resected volume in grams | intra-operative finding |
| hemoglobin drop | blood loss in dl/ml | intra-operative finding |
| conversion to other type of surgery | conversion to other types of surgeries like TURP, open surgery, procedure abortion | intra-operative finding |
| Operative safety: | capsular perforation, Yes/No | intra-operative finding |
| Operative safety: | morcellation injury, Yes/No | intra-operative finding |
| early post operative complication | stress incontinence, Yes/No | 1 month |
| early post operative complication | urinary tract infection, Yes/No | 1 month |
| early post operative complication | urine retention, Yes/No | 1 month |
| Postoperative efficacy: | IPSS: international prostate symptom score | 12 months |
| Postoperative efficacy: | QoL: quality of life questionnaire | 12 months |
| Postoperative efficacy: | Qmax (m/sec.) : peak flow rate | 12 months |
| Postoperative efficacy: | PVRU (ml): post voiding residual urine | 12 months |
| Postoperative efficacy: | PSA (ng/ml): prostatic specific antigen | 12 months |
| Postoperative efficacy: | postoperative prostate volume assessment in grams | 12 months |
| cost effectiveness | Running cost in Egyptian pounds of the following: irrigation fluid, hospital stay, fiber, loop, management of complication in each group | 12 months |
| hospital stay | duration of postoperative hospital stay in days | 1-7 days |
| Cost analysis | average running cost evaluation in both procedure | 1 year |
| D052801 |
| Male Urogenital Diseases |