Short Time Delay Between Previous Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Assessment and Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Correlates with Worse Perioperative Outcomes.

No data are available regarding the impact of time between a previous transrectal prostate biopsy (PB) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) on perioperative outcomes.

To evaluate the impact of time from PB to HoLEP on perioperative outcomes.

A total of 172 consecutive patients treated with HoLEP within 12 mo of a single previous transrectal PB at two tertiary centers were included.

Patients were stratified into two groups according to the median time from PB to HoLEP (namely, ≤6 and >6 mo). The primary outcome was intraoperative complications. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify the predictors of intraoperative complications. Linear regressions were used to test the association between the time from PB to HoLEP and intraoperative complications, enucleation efficiency, and enucleation time.

In total, 93 (54%) and 79 (46%) patients had PB ≤ 6 and >6 mo before HoLEP, respectively. Patients in PB ≤ 6 mo group experienced higher rates of intraoperative complications than those in PB > 6 mo group (14% vs 2.6%, p = 0.04). At multivariable analysis, time between PB and HoLEP was an independent predictor of intraoperative complications (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.6-0.9; p = 0.006). Finally, the risk of intraoperative complications reduced by 1.5%, efficiency of enucleation increased by 4.1%, and enucleation time reduced by 1.7 min for each month passed from PB to HoLEP (all p ≤ 0.006). Selection of patients with only one previous PB represents the main limitation.

The time from PB to HoLEP of ≤6 mo is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative complications, lower enucleation efficacy, and longer enucleation time.

Patients with a prostate biopsy (PB) ≤6 mo before holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) had significantly worse outcomes than those with a PB > 6 mo before HoLEP.

European urology focus. 2021 Apr 12 [Epub ahead of print]

Pietro Piazza, Lorenzo Bianchi, Marco Giampaoli, Matteo Droghetti, Carlo Casablanca, Amelio Ercolino, Carlo Beretta, Dario Recenti, Eleonora Balestrazzi, Stefano Puliatti, Giuseppe Rosiello, Marco Amato, Daniele Romagnoli, Daniele D'Agostino, Caterina Gaudiano, Rita Golfieri, Angelo Porreca, Alexandre Mottrie, Riccardo Schiavina

Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium., Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: ., Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy., ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium; Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy., Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy., Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy., Department of Urology, Policlinico Abano Terme, Padua, Italy., Department of Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy., Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Department of Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy., Department of Urology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto, Padua, Italy., Department of Urology, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium.