A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach—Initial Results

Dmitry Enikeev, Petr Glybochko, Leonid Rapoport, Jeffrey Gahan, Magomed Gazimiev, Leonid Spivak, Mikhail Enikeev, Mark Taratkin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)51-57
Number of pages7
JournalUrology
Volume121
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Learning Curve
Prostate
Lasers
Efficiency
Learning
Mentoring

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach—Initial Results. / Enikeev, Dmitry; Glybochko, Petr; Rapoport, Leonid; Gahan, Jeffrey; Gazimiev, Magomed; Spivak, Leonid; Enikeev, Mikhail; Taratkin, Mark.

In: Urology, Vol. 121, 01.11.2018, p. 51-57.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Enikeev, Dmitry ; Glybochko, Petr ; Rapoport, Leonid ; Gahan, Jeffrey ; Gazimiev, Magomed ; Spivak, Leonid ; Enikeev, Mikhail ; Taratkin, Mark. / A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach—Initial Results. In: Urology. 2018 ; Vol. 121. pp. 51-57.
@article{08a0e009c19147dfbb7b5437a8013de0,
title = "A Randomized Trial Comparing The Learning Curve of 3 Endoscopic Enucleation Techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach—Initial Results",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Dmitry Enikeev and Petr Glybochko and Leonid Rapoport and Jeffrey Gahan and Magomed Gazimiev and Leonid Spivak and Mikhail Enikeev and Mark Taratkin",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.045",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "121",
pages = "51--57",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

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

VL - 121

SP - 51

EP - 57

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

ER -