HoLEP Vs BPEP for Large Prostatic Adenoma

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.