World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 391–392 | Cite as

Old wine in new bottles?

  • Christopher NetschEmail author
  • Benedikt Becker
Letter to Editor

Dear Editor,

I read the above-mentioned article with interest to learn something “new” about a “novel” technique of a procedure which has initially been described 20 years ago by Peter Gilling and Mark Fraundorfer [1]. Ever since, the three-lobe holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) procedure has been well established for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) as a size-independent method with excellent long-term results [1, 2]. Meanwhile, a lot of technical modifications have been described for the HoLEP procedure: high power [1, 3], low power (total low power, low power at the apex and bladder neck) [4], en bloc [5], en bloc “no touch” techniques [6], or the anteroposterior dissection HoLEP technique [7]. The only issue that is not “new” is the 3 horse shoe-like incision HoLEP (3 HSI HoLEP) [8]. The described approach is a fundamental part of the HoLEP procedure and can be seen in mostly all of the videos published in this field, but has not been labelled...


Author contributions

CN: project development, data collection, manuscript writing, data analysis and interpretation. BB: project development, data collection, manuscript writing, data analysis and interpretation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any research on patients.


  1. 1.
    Fraundorfer MR, Gilling PJ (1998) Holmium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol 33:69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, de la Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C, McVary K, Novara G, Woo H, Madersbacher S (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update. Eur Urol 67:1066–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baazeem AS, Elmansy HM, Elhilali MM (2010) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: modified technical aspects. BJU Int 105(5):584–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cracco CM, Scoffone CM (2017) Low-power versus high-power en-bloc no-touch holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP); comparing feasibility, safety and efficacy. J Endourol 31(S2):A304Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gong YG, He DL, Wang MZ, Li XD, Zhu GD, Zheng ZH, Du YF, Chang LS, Nan XY (2012) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a modified enucleation technique and initial results. J Urol 187:1336–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scoffone CM, Cracco CM (2016) The en-bloc no-touch holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) technique. World J Urol 34:1175–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Endo F, Shiga Y, Minagawa S, Iwabuchi T, Fujisaki A, Yashi M, Hattori K, Muraishi O (2010) Anteroposterior dissection HoLEP: a modification to prevent transient stress urinary incontinence. Urology 76:1451–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miernik A, Schoeb DS (2018) “Three horse shoe-like incision” holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: first experience with a novel en bloc technique for anatomic transurethral prostatectomy. World J Urol. (Epub ahead of print) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herrmann TR (2016) Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation. World J Urol 34:1353–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyAsklepios Hospital BarmbekHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations