- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT04391114
Top-Down Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) vs the Traditional HoLEP for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH)
The Operative Parameters and Postoperative Outcomes of the Top-Down Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) Technique vs the Traditional HoLEP for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): A Randomized Prospective Comparative Study
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), the non-malignant enlargement of the prostate gland, places pressure on the urethra and causes urination difficulties and bladder problems. Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) secondary to BPH is a common condition in aging men, with an overall prevalence of more than 50% in those older than 50 years of age. Men with LUTS often experience sexual dysfunction including ejaculatory loss, painful ejaculation, and erectile dysfunction, which among other complications can also lead to a decreased quality of life.
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), first reported by Fraundorfer et al in 1998, is a more recent step in the evolution of holmium laser prostatectomy. HOLEP offers patients the alternative of being treated endoscopically with minimal blood loss, short catheterization time, and decreased hospital stay.
One noted drawback to HoLEP, and the primary reason why it has yet to become the new standard for treatment of symptomatic BPH, is the complexity of this procedure, with a prolonged learning curve. Modifications to the procedure have thus been explored in order to address this limitation. The "Top-Down" HoLEP technique is a novel technique which offers potential benefits to the Traditional HoLEP procedure, including decreased complexity, a reduced learning curve, with anticipated improved continence.
This study will compare the operating time between the Top-Down Holmium Laser Enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and the Traditional HoLEP for the treatment of patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction due to BPH in Northwestern Ontario.
Study Overview
Status
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), the non-malignant enlargement of the prostate gland, places pressure on the urethra and causes urination difficulties and bladder problems. Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) secondary to BPH is a common condition in aging men, with an overall prevalence of more than 50% in those older than 50 years of age. Men with LUTS often experience sexual dysfunction including ejaculatory loss, painful ejaculation, and erectile dysfunction, which among other complications can also lead to a decreased quality of life.
Conventional Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP), a surgical technique in which excess prostate tissue is removed using a resectoscope, remains the gold standard treatment in most centres for symptomatic BPH. However, morbidity after TURP is high, especially bleeding requiring blood transfusion (0.4-6.4%) and late postoperative bleeding (1.3-1.7%).
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), first reported by Fraundorfer et al in 1998, is a more recent step in the evolution of holmium laser prostatectomy. HoLEP is a safe and effective procedure which has demonstrated comparable results to TURP and open prostatectomy for patients with symptomatic enlarged prostate, with low morbidity and short hospital stay. The improvement in outcome parameters is durable, and the late complications and reoperation rates reported are very low. HoLEP is equally suitable for small, medium and larger prostate glands, with clinical outcomes that are independent of prostate size, unlike TURP. HOLEP offers patients the alternative of being treated endoscopically with minimal blood loss, short catheterization time, and decreased hospital stay.
One noted drawback to HoLEP, and the primary reason why it has yet to become the new standard for treatment of symptomatic BPH, is the complexity of this procedure, with a prolonged learning curve as compared to TURP. Modifications to the procedure have thus been explored in order to address this limitation. The "Top-Down" HoLEP technique is a novel technique which offers potential benefits to the Traditional HoLEP procedure, including decreased complexity, a reduced learning curve, with anticipated improved continence. A variation of this method is also being explored in Japan (termed the "en-bloc technique with anteroposterior dissection HoLEP"). The main difference between the Top-Down and Traditional approach is that the direction of lateral dissection begins from upwards to downwards. This could help in avoiding the overtraction of the mucosal strip overlying the posterior urethral sphincter, which theoretically leads to a decrease in the incidence of postoperative stress incontinence. Moreover, using the Top-Down approach should lead to a decrease in the incidence of lost enucleation planes, which results in decreasing the intraoperative time and decreasing the number of cases required to master the HoLEP technique.
In a recent retrospective review of this technique in Indiana, promising early operative results in a small sample size were demonstrated. The mean enucleation time and mean enucleation rate were both faster when comparing the 49 patients who underwent the top-down technique as compared to those 37 patients who underwent the traditional HoLEP technique. While the results of this particular study are limited by the relatively small number of cases and retrospective nature of the study, the potential value of this technique is evident. A retrospective review of 26 patients who underwent surgery using the en-bloc technique in Japan led to similar conclusions regarding the complexity of the procedure and improvement of rates. While this procedure demonstrates potential over the conventional TURP treatment and traditional HoLEP treatment of symptomatic BPH, the specific techniques of the Top-down technique must be further explored.
Our most recent online publication about Top-Down HoLEP early outcomes in 60 patients who underwent HoLEP between 2017 and 2018 with median prostate volume of 124ml (70-266) demonstrated at 3 months follow-up, the urine stream significantly improved with a median Qmax 23.6 mL/s (17-42). Two patients (3.3%) had urge incontinence, and 2 other patients (3.3%) had stress incontinence at 3 months follow-up.
This study will compare the operating time between the Top-Down Holmium Laser Enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and the Traditional HoLEP for the treatment of patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction due to BPH in Northwestern Ontario.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Ontario
-
Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, P7B6V4
- Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre/Thunder Bay Regional Health Research Institute
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Males over 50 years of age at the time of enrollment
- Referred to urology for refractory LUTS secondary to BPH
- Failed medical (non-surgical) treatment
- Prostate size on preoperative TRUS of > 80 ml
- IPSS >15, QOL score ≥3 and Qmax <15 ml/sec
- Written informed consent to participate in the study
- Ability to comply with the requirements of the study procedures
Exclusion Criteria:
- Previous surgical treatment for BPH
- Presence of bladder stones
- History of prostate cancer
- Prostate size < 80 mL
- History of urethral stenosis or its management
- Known or suspected neurogenic bladder
- Participants with active urinary tract infection until appropriately treated
- Participants with preexisting conditions, which, in the opinion of the investigator, interfere with the conduct of the study
- Participants who lack the capacity, or cannot speak English, in order to provide free and informed written consent
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Single
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: Traditional HoLEP
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), first reported by Fraundorfer et al in 1998, is a more recent step in the evolution of holmium laser prostatectomy.
HoLEP is a safe and effective procedure which has demonstrated comparable results to Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy for patients with symptomatic enlarged prostate, with low morbidity and short hospital stay [4].
The improvement in outcome parameters is durable, and the late complications and reoperation rates reported are very low [5].
HoLEP is equally suitable for small, medium and larger prostate glands, with clinical outcomes that are independent of prostate size, unlike TURP.
HOLEP offers patients the alterative of being treated endoscopically with minimal blood loss, short catheterization time, and decreased hospital stay [6].
|
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), first reported by Fraundorfer et al in 1998, is a more recent step in the evolution of holmium laser prostatectomy.
HoLEP is a safe and effective procedure which has demonstrated comparable results to TURP and open prostatectomy for patients with symptomatic enlarged prostate, with low morbidity and short hospital stay [4].
The improvement in outcome parameters is durable, and the late complications and reoperation rates reported are very low [5].
HoLEP is equally suitable for small, medium and larger prostate glands, with clinical outcomes that are independent of prostate size, unlike TURP.
HOLEP offers patients the alterative of being treated endoscopically with minimal blood loss, short catheterization time, and decreased hospital stay [6].
|
Active Comparator: Top-Down HoLEP
The "Top-Down" HoLEP technique is a novel technique which offers potential benefits to the Traditional HoLEP procedure, including decreased complexity, a reduced learning curve, with anticipated improved continence [8].
A variation of this method is also being explored in Japan (termed the "en-bloc technique with anteroposterior dissection HoLEP") [9].
The main difference between the Top-Down and Traditional approach is that the direction of lateral dissection begins from upwards to downwards.
This could help in avoiding the overtraction of the mucosal strip overlying the posterior urethral sphincter, which theoretically leads to a decrease in the incidence of postoperative stress incontinence.
Moreover, using the Top-Down approach should lead to a decrease in the incidence of lost enucleation planes, which results in decreasing the intraoperative time and decreasing the number of cases required to master the HoLEP technique.
|
The main difference between the Top-Down and Traditional approach is that the direction of lateral dissection begins from upwards to downwards.
This could help in avoiding the overtraction of the mucosal strip overlying the posterior urethral sphincter, which theoretically leads to a decrease in the incidence of postoperative stress incontinence.
Moreover, using the Top-Down approach should lead to a decrease in the incidence of lost enucleation planes, which results in decreasing the intraoperative time and decreasing the number of cases required to master the HoLEP technique.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Operating time
Time Frame: Operating time/Surgery
|
Length of time required for surgical procedure
|
Operating time/Surgery
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Intraoperative adverse events
Time Frame: During surgery
|
Incidence of bleeding and blood transfusion; and operative time/laser time ratio to be investigated
|
During surgery
|
Length of hospital stay
Time Frame: 1-day post-op
|
Time participant had to remain in hospital following surgery.
Time to be measured in hours and minutes
|
1-day post-op
|
Time to catheter removal
Time Frame: 1-day post-op
|
Time until catheter was removed from participant post-surgery.
Measured in hours and minutes
|
1-day post-op
|
International Prostate Symptom Scores (I-PSS)
Time Frame: 1-year post-op
|
The International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS) is based on the answers to seven questions concerning urinary symptoms and one question concerning quality of life.
Each question concerning urinary symptoms allows the patient to choose one out of six answers indicating increasing severity of the particular symptom.
The answers are assigned points from 0 to 5. The total score can therefore range from 0 to 35 (asymptomatic to very symptomatic).
|
1-year post-op
|
Quality of Life (QoL) scores
Time Frame: 1-year post-op
|
One question asking; "If you were to spend the rest of your life with your urinary condition just the way it is now, how would you feel about that?
Scored from 0-6 with 0 being "delighted" and 6 being "terrible".
Higher the score, the lower the quality of life.
|
1-year post-op
|
peak urine flow rates (Qmax)
Time Frame: 1-year post-op
|
Indicates the maximum urine flow rate.
In men peak flow rates (Qmax) greater than 15-20 ml/second are considered normal, rates less than 10 ml/second are considered abnormal.
This is measured by Uroflowmetry, also called a uroflow test, which measures the flow and force of urine stream during urination.
|
1-year post-op
|
post-void residual urine volume (PVR)
Time Frame: 1-year post-op
|
The amount of urine retained in the bladder after a voluntary void.
Incomplete bladder emptying is diagnosed by postvoid catheterization or ultrasonography showing an elevated residual urine volume.
A volume < 50 mL is normal; <100 mL is usually acceptable in patients > 65 but abnormal in younger patients
|
1-year post-op
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Collaborators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Hazem Elmansy, MD, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Estimated)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- 2019518
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
-
The Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandUniversity College, LondonCompletedUncomplicated Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
-
National Taiwan University HospitalUnknownDisorder of the Lower Urinary TractTaiwan
-
ProVerum MedicalNot yet recruitingBPH With Symptomatic Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
-
The University of Texas Medical Branch, GalvestonCompletedLower Urinary Tract Symptoms | Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Symptoms
-
Far Eastern Memorial HospitalCompletedPsychiatric Aspects in Women With Lower Urinary Tract SymptomsTaiwan
-
Baylor Research InstituteForte MedicalCompletedLower Urinary Tract Symptoms | Lower Urinary Tract InfectionUnited States
-
Jagiellonian UniversityPiotr ChlostaCompletedTo Evaluate Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in PolandPoland
-
Boston Scientific CorporationTerminatedBPH | BPH With Urinary Obstruction | BPH With Urinary Obstruction With Other Lower Urinary Tract SymptomsUnited States, Australia
-
Benaroya Research InstituteVirginia Mason Hospital/Medical CenterUnknownPain | BPH With Urinary Obstruction | BPH With Urinary Obstruction With Other Lower Urinary Tract SymptomsUnited States
-
San Carlo di Nancy HospitalLampugnani Farmaceutici S.p.A. (Nerviano, Milan, Italy)CompletedBPH With Urinary Obstruction With Other Lower Urinary Tract SymptomsItaly
Clinical Trials on Traditional HoLEP
-
University of Kansas Medical CenterUnknown
-
GCS Ramsay Santé pour l'Enseignement et la RechercheNot yet recruiting
-
Marcelino RiveraIndiana UniversityActive, not recruiting
-
Mansoura UniversityCompleted
-
Olympus Surgical Technologies EuropeTerminatedBenign Prostatic HypertrophyChina
-
Ain Shams UniversityCompletedBenign Prostatic HyperplasiaEgypt
-
University of BariGaetano de Rienzo; Pasquale Ditonno; Francesco Di Modugno; Michele Battaglia; Giuseppe... and other collaboratorsUnknownBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH)Italy
-
University of MiamiEnrolling by invitationBenign Prostatic HyperplasiaUnited States
-
Al-Azhar UniversityRecruitingBenign Prostatic HyperplasiaEgypt
-
Mansoura UniversityUnknownBenign Prostatic HyperplasiaEgypt