TY - JOUR
T1 - A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach—Initial Results
AU - Enikeev, Dmitry
AU - Glybochko, Petr
AU - Rapoport, Leonid
AU - Gahan, Jeffrey
AU - Gazimiev, Magomed
AU - Spivak, Leonid
AU - Enikeev, Mikhail
AU - Taratkin, Mark
PY - 2018/11/1
Y1 - 2018/11/1
N2 - Objective: To assess the differences in the learning curve associated with different techniques of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. Materials and Methods: Ninety patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups (30 patients in each): HoLEP, ThuFLEP or MEP. Inclusion criteria for the study included prostate volume <80 cc, IPSS > 20, or Qmax < 10. The EEPs were performed by 3 surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate. Assignment of surgeons to surgical technique was also randomized. None of the surgeons had prior experience in EEP. Results: ThuFLEP was slightly superior (with no significant difference [P >.05]) to HoLEP and MEP in terms of overall enucleation rate—1.0 g/min vs 0.8 g/min and 0.7 g/min, respectively. We observed similar enucleation rates at the initial stages of training (first 20 surgeries) with insignificant increase in ThuFLEP efficiency. At next 10 surgeries ThuFLEP and HoLEP efficiency were higher than of MEP (P <.001) without significant difference between techniques of laser EEP (P =.07). Conclusion: Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate can be adopted safely and effectively within 30 surgeries if the technique is learned with a mentoring approach. EEP is shown to be safe and effective even in the initial stages of learning. Laser EEP (HoLEP, ThuFLEP) appears to lend itself to quicker adaptation compared MEP.
AB - Objective: To assess the differences in the learning curve associated with different techniques of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. Materials and Methods: Ninety patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups (30 patients in each): HoLEP, ThuFLEP or MEP. Inclusion criteria for the study included prostate volume <80 cc, IPSS > 20, or Qmax < 10. The EEPs were performed by 3 surgeons experienced in transurethral resection of the prostate. Assignment of surgeons to surgical technique was also randomized. None of the surgeons had prior experience in EEP. Results: ThuFLEP was slightly superior (with no significant difference [P >.05]) to HoLEP and MEP in terms of overall enucleation rate—1.0 g/min vs 0.8 g/min and 0.7 g/min, respectively. We observed similar enucleation rates at the initial stages of training (first 20 surgeries) with insignificant increase in ThuFLEP efficiency. At next 10 surgeries ThuFLEP and HoLEP efficiency were higher than of MEP (P <.001) without significant difference between techniques of laser EEP (P =.07). Conclusion: Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate can be adopted safely and effectively within 30 surgeries if the technique is learned with a mentoring approach. EEP is shown to be safe and effective even in the initial stages of learning. Laser EEP (HoLEP, ThuFLEP) appears to lend itself to quicker adaptation compared MEP.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054850301&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054850301&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.045
DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.045
M3 - Article
C2 - 30053397
AN - SCOPUS:85054850301
SN - 0090-4295
VL - 121
SP - 51
EP - 57
JO - Urology
JF - Urology
ER -