Propensity score-matched evaluation of palliative transurethral resection and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction in patients with prostate cancer

Abstract Background While transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard-of-care, Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is widely accepted as a size-independent method for surgical treatment of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). However, in an ageing society an increasing number of patients presents with BOO due to locally advanced prostate cancer. There is currently no guidelines recommendation as to the enucleation or resection technique. Therefore, we compared intraoperative performance, postoperative outcomes, and safety for palliative (p)TURP and (p)HoLEP. Methods We conducted a retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis of 1373 and 2705 men who underwent TURP or HoLEP for LUTS/BOO between 2014 and 2021, respectively. Patients were matched for age, prostate size and preoperative international prostate symptom score (IPSS). Patients were stratified by technique and groups were compared for perioperative parameters, safety, and functional outcomes. Results While postoperative symptoms and urodynamic parameters improved irrespective of technique, we report significantly increased resection and enucleation times for palliative indication. For corresponding efficiency parameters, we observed a two-fold higher surgical performance (g/min) for both techniques in patients without prostate cancer. While adverse events were comparable between groups, we found a two-fold higher hemoglobin drop in palliative patients. Conclusions Currently, there is no standard-of-care for patients with BOO and locally advanced prostate cancer. Our data show that both TURP and HoLEP offer adequate symptom improvement and comparable safety profiles. While HoLEP is feasible even in larger prostates, both procedures become more difficult in patients with prostate cancer. Taken together, this study covers an important gap in current literature, helping urological surgeons to make evidence-based decisions for the benefit of their patients.