Surgical treatment of large volume prostates: a matched pair analysis comparing the open, endoscopic (ThuVEP) and robotic approach

Objective To compare open simple prostatectomy, endoscopic enucleation and laparoscopic, robot-assisted enucleation of high-volume prostate in terms of operation time, blood loss, transfusion and complication rates and early continence rates. Material and methods Patients with BPH treated endoscopically (ThuVEP, Hamburg and Hannover) or robotically (Mainz) were evaluated prospectively for prostate size, free flow and validated questionnaires (IPSS, QoL). 35 patients were matched to patients after open prostatectomy (Mainz) for age, prostate size, IPSS and QoL scores. Operation time was noted from the first cut to the last suture; blood loss was estimated by the drop of haemoglobin preoperatively and one day after surgery. Transfusion rates were documented. Early continence was estimated by pad use over the first 24 h after catheter removal. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 22.0. Results No significant differences in prostate size, age and preoperative questionnaires were found (p > 0.3). Postoperative flow and the results of the questionnaires were significantly improved (all p < 0.05), without difference between the approaches (p > 0.8). Endoscopic surgery showed superiority in operation time (both p < 0.05); blood loss and transfusion rates were significantly lower compared to open surgery (both p < 0.01) and lower than in robotic surgery without reaching significance (p = 0.18, p = 0.36). Similar results were seen in early continence rates. Conclusion Due to our results, endoscopic surgery should be considered as first-line therapy unless there are comorbidities like diverticula and/or bladder calculi that can be easily treated simultaneously by robotic surgery. Against the background of these findings, indications favouring open surgery are getting sparse.