Comparative assessment of structural changes in the prostate after bipolar plasma and thulium fiber laser enucleation of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Background. Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease in older men. Transurethral surgery in BPH is the gold standard for treatment, but the techniques differ in the energy used. Considering the different mechanisms of action of bipolar plasma and thulium fiber laser energy on prostate tissue, the study of structural changes under their influence is relevant.

The aim. To study the features of structural changes in the prostate during bipolar plasma and thulium fiber laser enucleation of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Methods. Thirty one patients with BPH were divided into two groups. Group 1 (n = 17) underwent transurethral plasma enucleation of the prostate; Group 2 (n = 14) underwent transurethral thulium fiber laser enucleation. Fragments of the surgical prostate capsule were collected intraoperatively and were processed according to standard examination protocols using light and electron microscopy. The width of coagulation necrosis, the relief of the dissection line, the severity of cell and the prostate intercellular matrix destruction were taken into account.

Results. Studies have shown the clinical and functional perioperative homology of the compared methods of surgical treatment of BPH. Data from light and electron prostate microscopy showed a greater damaging effect of bipolar plasma energy, which is manifested by a larger width of the zone of coagulation necrosis, a torn and raised appearance of the dissection line, and pronounced integrity violations of cellular elements and intercellular matrix components. Laser exposure causes less pronounced changes, which indicates a more gentle effect of the thulium fiber laser on the prostate components.

Conclusion. The obtained microscopy results indicate that the intraoperative action of a thulium fiber laser is less traumatic for the cells and intercellular matrix of the surgical prostate capsule compared to bipolar plasma exposure.

1. Egan KB. The epidemiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia associated with lower urinary tract symptoms: Prevalence and incident rates. Urol Clin North Am. 2016; 43: 289-297. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2016.04.001

2. Zolotukhin OV, Esin AV, Madykin YuYu. Pathogenetic justification of the use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2022; 15(3): 94-101. (In Russ.). doi: 10.29188/2222-85432022-15-3-94-101

3. Alyaev YuG, Glybochko PV, Pushkar DYu. Urology.russian clinical guidelines. Moscow: Medforum; 2017. (In Russ.).

4. De Nunzio C, Giglio S, Baldassarri V, Cirombella R, Mal lel G, Nacchia A, et al. Impairment of autophagy may represent the molecular mechanism behind the relationship between obesity and inflammation in patients with BPH and LUTS. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021; 73(5): 631-637. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.20.03992

5. Xue B, Wu S, Sharkey C, Tabatabaei S, Wu CL, Tao Z, et al. Obesity-associated inflammation induces androgenic to estrogenic switch in the prostate gland. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020; 23(3): 465-474. doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0208-4

6. Tyuzikov IA, Kalinchenko SYu. Benign prostatic hyperplasia as a systemic hormone-metabolic disease: Time to change paradigm of pathogenesis and drug therapy. Effective Pharmacotherapy. 2016; 33(4): 32-53. (In Russ.).

7. Panferov AS, Kotov SV, Yusufov AG, Elagin VV, Bekreev EA, Badakva GV, et al. Laparoscopic transvesical adenomectomy for large and giant prostate gland. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2022; 15(1): 102-110. (In Russ.). doi: 10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-1-102-110

8. Gafarov RR. Minimally invasive technologies in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Biomedicine and Practice. 2023; 8(3): 423-429. doi: 10.5281/ zenodo.8166070

9. Giyasov SI, Gafarov RR. Comparative analysis of electrosurgical and laser enucleation methods of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Biomedicine and Practice. 2021; 6(4): 151-159. (In Russ.). doi: 10.26739/21819300-2021-4-22

10. Filimonov VB, Vasin RV, Sobennikov IS, Ananin BA, Shirobakina EYu. Comparative characteristics of modern methods of surgical treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (literature review). Science of the Young (Eruditio Juvenium). 2021; 9(2): 313-325. (In Russ.). doi: 10.23888/HMJ202192313-325

11. Enikeev DV, Laukhtina EA, Arshiev MR, Taratkin MS, Alyaev YuG, Rapoport LM, et al. The lasers in urology. Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2020; 75(2): 162-168. (In Russ.). doi: 10.15690/vramn1196

12. Hartung FO, Kowalewski KF, von Hardenberg J, Worst TS, Kriegmair MC, Nuhn P, et al. Holmium versus thulium laser enucleation of the prostate: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Urol Focus. 2022; 8(2): 545-554. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.03.024

13. Gauhar V, Nedbal C, Castellani D, Fong KY, Sofer M, Socarras MR, et al. Comparison between thulium fiber laser and high-power holmium laser for anatomic endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A propensity score-matched analysis from the REAP registry. Eur Urol Focus. 2023; S2405-4569(23): 00150-00155. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.06.009

14. Bozzini G, Berti L, Maltagliati M, Besana U, Micali S, Roche JB, et al. Thulium: YAG vs continuous-wave thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate: Do potential advantages of thulium fiber lasers translate into relevant clinical differences? World J Urol. 2023; 41(1): 143-150. doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04201-1

15. Feng L, Zhang D, Tian Y, Song J. Thulium laser enucleation versus plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate: A randomized trial of a single center. J Endourol. 2016; 30(6): 665-670. doi: 10.1089/ end.2015.0867

16. Patard PM, Roumiguie M, Sanson S, Beauval JB, Huyghe E, Soulie M, et al. Endoscopic enucleation for prostate largerthan 60 mL: Comparison between holmium laser enucleation and plasmakinetic enucleation. World J Urol. 2021; 39(6): 2011-2018. doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03382-x

17. Semenychev DV, Volodin MA. The use of transurethral plasma prostate vaporesection in the surgical treatment of BPH in patients with an increased risk of bleeding. Original Research Journal. 2017; 4: 37-44. (In Russ.).

18. Jansen ED, van Leeuwen TG, Motamedi M, Borst C, Welch AJ. Temperature dependence of the absorption coefficient of water for midinfrared laser radiation. Lasers Surg Med. 1994; 14(3): 258-268. doi: 10.1002/lsm.1900140308

19. Kronenberg P, Traxer O. The laser of the future: Real ity and expectations about the new thulium fiber laser – A systematic review. Transl Androl Urol. 2019; 8(Suppl 4): S398-S417. doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.08.01

20. Fried NM, Murray KE. High-power thulium fiber laser ablation of urinary tissues at 1.94 microm. J Endourol. 2005; 19(1): 25-31. doi: 10.1089/end.2005.19.25

21. Xu H, Wan X, Gu M, Chen Y, Shi Q, Chen Q, et al. Surgi cal treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). J Vis Exp. 2018; (133): 56683. doi: 10.3791/56683

22. Ma Y, Lin L, Luo Z, Jin T. Network meta-analysis of the treatment safety and efficacy of different lasers in prostate enucleation. J Endourol 2022; 36(12): 1613-1624. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0282

23. Gu C, Zhou N, Gurung P, Kou Y, Luo Y, Wang Y, et al. Lasers versus bipolar technology in the transurethral treatment of benign prostatic enlargement: A systematic review and metaanalysis of comparative studies. World J Urol. 2020; 38(4): 907-918. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02852-1