Search

Introduction: Novel laser technologies have been developed for the minimally invasive surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of MOSESTM technology versus the thulium fiber laser (TFL) in patients with BPH undergoing transurethral enucleation of the prostate. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of eighty-two patients who underwent transurethral enucleation of the prostate using MOSESTM or TFL technologies from August 2020 to September 2021. Preoperative and intraoperative parameters, in addition to postoperative outcomes, were collected and analyzed. Results: Twenty patients underwent transurethral enucleation of the prostate with TFL, while 62 had MOSESTM HoLEP. No statistically significant difference in preoperative characteristics was observed between the groups. Patients in the TFL group had longer median enucleation, hemostasis, and morcellation times (p < 0.001) than those in the MOSESTM cohort. The longer morcellation time of TFL is mostly related to less visibility. The postoperative outcomes IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and post void residual (PVR), were comparable between the groups at 1, 3 and 6 months. The incidence of urge urinary incontinence (p = 0.79), stress urinary incontinence (p = 0.97), and hospital readmission rates (p = 0.1) were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: A satisfactory safety and efficacy profile with comparable postoperative outcomes was demonstrated for both techniques; though, MOSESTM technology was superior to TFL in terms of shorter overall operative time.

Background: In 2018, our Institute launched the Diagnostic Assessment Program (DAP) for prostate cancer. It enabled quick access to a urologist for patients presented to family physician with elevated PSA and allowed fast multidisciplinary patient care. We aim to document our data over 2 years in comparison to data before implementation of DAP and its impact on the degree of adherence to Canadian guidelines. Methods: From April 2016 to April 2020, 880 patients who were evaluated for prostate cancer at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC) were included in this study. Patients’ characteristics, clinical data, waiting times and line of treatment before and after implementation of DAP were calculated and statistically analysed. Results: The median waiting time to urology consultation was significantly reduced from 68 (IQR 27-168) days to 34 (23-44) days (p < 0.001). The time from patient’s referral to prostate biopsy decreased substantially from 34 (20-66) days to 18(11- 25) days after DAP (p < 0.001). After DAP, the percentage of Gleason 6 detected prostate cancers were significantly increased (19.7% to 30%) (p = 0.02). After DAP, rate for intermediate-risk patients elected for external beam radiotherapy (from 53.5% to 57.9%, p = 0.53) and radical prostatectomy (from 34.5% to 39.4%, p = 0.47) increased. More compliance to Canadian guidelines was observed in intermediate risk patients (88% vs 97.3%, p =.008). Conclusions: Implementation of DAP has led to a notable reduction of waiting time to urology consult and prostate biopsy. There is significant increase in Gleason 6 detected prostate cancer. Increased compliance to Canadian guidelines was detected in intermediate risk patients.