Safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of prostate as salvage procedure for persistent or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to bladder outlet obstruction after prior prostate artery embolization: a match analysis

• Published in: World journal of urology 2021-11, Vol.39 (11), p.4199-4206
• Main Authors: Parmar, Madhumita, Katz, Jonathan E., Blachman-Braun, Ruben, Smith, Nicholas A., Oneto, Sabrina M., Bhatia, Shivank, Kryvenko, Oleksandr N., Shah, Hemendra N.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Arteries; Cancer surgery; Catheterization; Connective tissues; Demography; Embolization; Embolization, Therapeutic; Enucleation; Hemoglobin; Humans; Infarction; Lasers, Solid-State - adverse effects; Lasers, Solid-State - therapeutic use; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - etiology; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - surgery; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Metaplasia; Middle Aged; Nephrology; Oncology; Original Article; Patients; Prostate - blood supply; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy - adverse effects; Prostatectomy - methods; Prostatic Hyperplasia - therapy; Recurrence; Retrospective Studies; Salvage Therapy; Statistical analysis; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction - complications; Urinary tract; Urogenital system; Urological surgery; Urology
• ISSN: 0724-4983; 1433-8726
• DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03747-w

Purpose To evaluate safety and efficacy of Holmium laser enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP) for management of persistent or recurrent lower urinary tract symptoms after prior prostate artery embolization (PAE). We also evaluated histopathological changes in prostate after PAE. Methods Ten patients who underwent HoLEP after prior PAE were matched according to age, weight of resected prostate tissue, and anticoagulation status in 1:2 ratio with patients who underwent HoLEP without prior PAE by a researcher who was blinded to patient’s outcome at the time of matching. Histopathological examination of prostate tissue was performed to look for changes related to prior PAE. Patient’s demographics, perioperative parameters, and follow-up data were retrospectively compared. Results The median interval between PAE and HoLEP was 25 months [IQR 14.5–37.5]. Patients demographic were comparable in both groups. Intra-operatively plane of enucleation were well-maintained in spite of prior PAE. The differences in duration of surgery, enucleation efficiency, hemoglobin drop, duration of catheterization and hospital stay, and complications were statistically insignificant. Incidental prostate cancer was identified in 10% specimens from both groups. Post-PAE prostate specimens demonstrated evidence of remote-healed infarction represented by dense hyalinized paucicellur connective tissue with surrounding squamous metaplasia. There were no statistically significant differences in AUA symptom scores, maximum urine flow rate, post-void residual urine volume, and PSA at 3- and 6-month follow-up between both groups. Conclusions Plane of enucleation is well-maintained after prior PAE. Salvage HoLEP is safe and effective after previous PAE and provide outcome comparable with HoLEP as a primary procedure.