Ejaculation-sparing versus non-ejaculation-sparing anatomic GreenLight laser enucleo-vaporization of the prostate: first comparative study

• Published in: World journal of urology Vol. 39; no. 9; pp. 3455 - 3463
• Main Authors: Destefanis, Paolo, Sibona, Mattia, Soria, Francesco, Vercelli, Eugenia, Vitiello, Federico, Bosio, Andrea, Bisconti, Alessandro, Lillaz, Beatrice, Gontero, Paolo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-09-2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Aged; Ejaculation; Humans; Hyperplasia; Laser Therapy - methods; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Nephrology; Oncology; Original Article; Patients; Prostate; Prostatectomy - methods; Prostatic Hyperplasia - surgery; Retrospective Studies; Urinary tract; Urology; Benign prostatic hyperplasia; GreenLight; Prostate; Ejaculation; Surgery; Laser
• ISSN: 0724-4983; 1433-8726
• DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03615-7

Purpose
To present the step-by-step description of an ejaculation-sparing anatomic photo-selective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) technique. To report the results of a series of ejaculation-sparing versus non-ejaculation-sparing anatomic PVPs.
Methods
Sexually active, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients undergoing an anatomic PVP between 11/2018 and 2/2020 were included. Patients were divided into group A (ejaculation-sparing surgery) and group B (control group). Baseline, peri-operative and 6-months follow-up data were evaluated. Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and sexual function were assessed through internationally validated questionnaires. Groups were matched by an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. Logistic univariable regression analysis was performed to detect predictors of antegrade ejaculation preservation.
Results
Overall, 76 patients were included, among which 15 in group A and 61 in group B. Median (inter-quartile range, IQR) age was 72 (66.5–77) years, median (IQR) prostate volume 63.5 (54.5–98.5) cc. No differences about peri-operative outcomes were detected, included high-grade complications. At 6-months follow-up, no differences in urinary or erectile function were detected between groups, while ejaculation-sparing patients showed better Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ) scores [7 (1–13) vs. 1 (1–1),
p
 < 0.001] and higher rates of antegrade ejaculation (60% vs. 13.1%,
p
 < 0.001). The ejaculation-sparing technique was identified as a predictor of post-operative antegrade ejaculation (OR 19.3, CI 95% 7.2–51.2,
p
 < 0.001).
Conclusion
The ejaculation-sparing anatomic PVP showed superiority over the control group in post-operative ejaculatory function scores and antegrade ejaculation rates. Besides, preliminary results suggested similar effectiveness in LUTS relief at a short-term follow-up.