Feasibility of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate as a 1-day surgery
- 3 Downloads
To assess the safety and feasibility of HoLEP as a day-case procedure.
We reviewed all consecutive patients who underwent HoLEP at our institution between February 2017 and March 2018. During this time, we began a prospective trial aimed at same-day discharge of specific patients. Baseline and demographic variables, and past medical, past urological, intra-operative and post-operative variables in addition to disposition and readmission data were collected. Bivariate analysis was conducted to compare patients based on the day of discharge and readmission. A multivariable model using multiple-regression analysis was used to assess predictors for early discharge or readmission.
There were 179 total HoLEP procedures that were performed during the study period. Forty-seven patients were suitable candidates for same-day discharge. Among this group, 28 (59.5%) patients were successfully discharged home on the same day. Nineteen patients (40.4%) could not be discharged. The most common cause of not to discharge patients was the degree of hematuria without continuous bladder irrigation. Pre-operative prostate volume was different between the two groups (88.4 ± 30.7 cc for discharged patients vs 69.0 ± 30.7 cc for admitted patients, p = 0.033). No other pre-operative differences were identified. There were five readmissions (17.8%) following same-day discharge. Readmitted patients had higher rates of history of urinary tract infection (80% vs 26.2%, p = 0.0304). On multivariable analysis, no statistically significant predictors were identified for early discharge or readmission.
Same-day discharge following HoLEP is safe and feasible in well-selected patients.
KeywordsHolmium HoLEP Prostate Same day surgery BPH
H A-M: project development, data collection and management, data analysis and manuscript writing. WC: protocol and project development, data collection and manuscript editing. AN: manuscript editing. JG: data collection and project development. KT: data collection and project development. MG: statistical analysis. PA: manuscript editing. SC: manuscript editing. MH: project and protocol design, manuscript editing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Elmansy HM, Kotb A, Elhilali MM (2011) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: long-term durability of clinical outcomes and complication rates during 10 years of followup. J Urol 186(5):1972–1976Google Scholar
- 2.Gilling PJ, Wilson LC, King CJ, Westenberg AM, Frampton CM, Fraundorfer MR (2012) Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate: results at 7 years. BJU Int 109(3):408–411Google Scholar
- 3.Tooher R, Sutherland P, Costello A, Gilling P, Rees G, Maddern G (2004) A systematic review of holmium laser prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 171(5):1773–1781Google Scholar
- 4.Yin L, Teng J, Huang CJ, Zhang X, Xu D (2013) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Endourol 27(5):604–611Google Scholar
- 5.El Tayeb MM, Jacob JM, Bhojani N, Bammerlin E, Lingeman JE (2016) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients requiring anticoagulation. J Endourol 30(7):805–809Google Scholar
- 6.Elmansy H, Baazeem A, Kotb A, Badawy H, Riad E, Emran A et al (2012) Holmium laser enucleation versus photoselective vaporization for prostatic adenoma greater than 60 ml: preliminary results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Urol 188(1):216–221Google Scholar
- 7.Naspro R, Suardi N, Salonia A, Scattoni V, Guazzoni G, Colombo R et al (2006) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates > 70 g: 24-month follow-up. Eur Urol 50(3):563–568Google Scholar
- 8.Zhang Y, Du CJ, Xu G, Chen JM, Jing X (2007) Transurethral holmium laser enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 g. Natl J Androl 13(12):1091–1093Google Scholar
- 9.Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, Emberton M, Gravas S, Michel MC et al (2013) EAU guidelines on the treatment and follow-up of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol 64(1):118–140Google Scholar
- 10.Nazzani S, Preisser F, Mazzone E, Tian Z, Mistretta FA, Shariat SF et al (2018) In-hospital length of stay after major surgical oncological procedures. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(7):969–974Google Scholar
- 11.Abdul-Muhsin HM, Tyson MD, Stern KL, Nunez-Nateras RA, Humphreys MR (2016) The impact of training on the perioperative and intermediate functional outcomes after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Can J Urol 23(6):8557–8563Google Scholar
- 12.Humphreys MR, Miller NL, Handa SE, Terry C, Munch LC, Lingeman JE (2008) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate–outcomes independent of prostate size? J Urol 180(6):2431–2435 (discussion 5) Google Scholar
- 13.Palumbo P, Tellan G, Perotti B, Pacile MA, Vietri F, Illuminati G (2013) Modified PADSS (Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System) for monitoring outpatients discharge. Ann Ital Chir 84(6):661–665Google Scholar
- 14.van Walraven C, Dhalla IA, Bell C, Etchells E, Stiell IG, Zarnke K et al (2010) Derivation and validation of an index to predict early death or unplanned readmission after discharge from hospital to the community. CMAJ Can Medi Assoc J = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne 182(6):551–557Google Scholar
- 15.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383Google Scholar
- 16.Clavien PA, Strasberg SM (2009) Severity grading of surgical complications. Ann Surg 250(2):197–198Google Scholar
- 17.Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, de la Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C et al (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(6):1066–1096Google Scholar
- 18.Fayad AS, Sheikh MG, Zakaria T, Elfottoh HA, Alsergany R (2011) Holmium laser enucleation versus bipolar resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized study. Which to choose? J Endourol 25(8):1347–1352Google Scholar
- 19.Neill MG, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, Frampton CM, Westenberg AM, Fraundorfer MR et al (2006) Randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of prostate with plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 68(5):1020–1024Google Scholar
- 20.Larner TR, Agarwal D, Costello AJ (2003) Day-case holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for gland volumes of < 60 mL: early experience. BJU Int 91(1):61–64Google Scholar
- 21.Comat V, Marquette T, Sutter W, Bernhard JC, Pasticier G, Capon G et al (2017) Day-case holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: prospective evaluation of 90 consecutive cases. J Endourol 31(10):1056–1061Google Scholar
- 22.Gabbay G, Bernhard JC, Renard O, Ballanger P, Ferriere JM, Fallot J et al (2015) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate as a day case surgery: prospective evaluation of the first 30 patients. Prog Urol 25(1):34–39Google Scholar
- 23.Merkow RP, Ju MH, Chung JW, Hall BL, Cohen ME, Williams MV et al (2015) Underlying reasons associated with hospital readmission following surgery in the United States. JAMA 313(5):483–495Google Scholar
- 24.Palmisano F, Boeri L, Fontana M, Gallioli A, De Lorenzis E, Zanetti SP et al (2018) Incidence and predictors of readmission within 30 days of transurethral resection of the prostate: a single center European experience. Sci Rep 8(1):6575Google Scholar
- 25.Martin AD, Nunez RN, Humphreys MR (2011) Bleeding after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: lessons learned the hard way. BJU Int 107(3):433–437Google Scholar
- 26.Martin AD, Nunez RN, Andrews JR, Martin GL, Andrews PE, Castle EP (2010) Outpatient prostatectomy: too much too soon or just what the patient ordered. Urology 75(2):421–424Google Scholar