Enucleation Ratio Efficacy Might Be a Better Predictor to Assess Learning Curve of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate
Overview
Affiliations
Purpose: To appraise the evaluation methods for learning curve and to analyze the non-mentor-aided learning curve and early complications following the holmium laser enucleation of the prostate.
Materials And Methods: One-hundred and forty (n=140) consecutive patients who underwent HoLEP from July 2008 to July 2010 by a single surgeon (SJO) were enrolled. Perioperative clinical variables, including enucleation time, morcellation time, enucleation ratio (enucleation weight/transitional zone volume), enucleation efficacy (enucleated weight/enucleation time), enucleation ratio efficacy (enucleation ratio/enucleation time), and early complication rate were analyzed.
Results: Mean prostate volume was 62.7 mL (range 21-162) and preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 19.0 (4-35). Mean enucleation time and morcellation time were 49.9 ± 23.8 (S.D.) min and 11.0 ± 9.7 min, respectively. Median duration of postoperative indwelling catheter was 1 (1-7) day and median hospital stay was 1 (1-6) day. There were a total of 31 surgery-related complications in 27 patients (19.3%), and all were manageable. There was an increasing trend of enucleation efficacy in the first 50 cases. However, enucleation efficacy was linearly correlated with the prostate size (correlation coefficients, R=0.701, p<0.001). But, enucleation ratio efficacy could eliminate the confounding effect of the prostate size (R=-0.101, p=0.233). The plateau of enucleation ratio efficacy was reached around the twenty-fifth case.
Conclusions: Our results demonstrated that the operative learning curve plateau is reached after about 25 cases. We propose that a more appropriate parameter for estimating the operative learning curve is enucleation ratio efficacy, rather than enucleation efficacy.
Lee H, So S, Cho M, Cho S, Paick J, Oh S Investig Clin Urol. 2024; 65(4):361-367.
PMID: 38978216 PMC: 11231663. DOI: 10.4111/icu.20240080.
Cheng Y, Hong J, Lu Y, Chang Y, Hung S, Feng K Front Oncol. 2022; 12:949275.
PMID: 35912236 PMC: 9334729. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.949275.
Tunc L, Bozzini G, Scoffone C, Guven S, Hermann T, Porreca A Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021; 32:28-34.
PMID: 34667956 PMC: 8505198. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.07.005.
Bebi C, Turetti M, Lievore E, Ripa F, Rocchini L, Spinelli M PLoS One. 2021; 16(6):e0253083.
PMID: 34106986 PMC: 8189479. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253083.
The Learning Curves for Laser Application in Urology Procedures: Review of the Literature.
Allameh F, Razzaghi M, Abedi A, Dadpour M J Lasers Med Sci. 2021; 11(Suppl 1):S8-S15.
PMID: 33995963 PMC: 7956034. DOI: 10.34172/jlms.2020.S2.