Dora, Chandler D

ABSTRACT Introduction Operating room (OR) noise during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), particularly from laser activation, may impair surgical workflow and staff performance. Methods 84 HoLEP procedures were recorded at three academic institutions between June 2024 and January 2026. Laser platforms included Lumenis Moses 2.0, Quanta Litho 150, Quanta Magneto, and Dornier Thulio. Sound measurements were obtained using a standardized smartphone‐based system during three phases: laser‐off (baseline), idle (not firing), and active lasing. Acoustic metrics included average sound level (LAeq), peak sound level (Lcpeak), and sound levels exceeded for 10%, 50%, and 90% of the recording time (L10, L50, and L90). Background noise correction was performed using baseline measurements to account for ambient noise and isolate laser‐related sound. OR staff completed a validated survey assessing perceived noise burden (0–10 scale). Results Background‐corrected noise during active lasing differed significantly by platform. Litho demonstrated lower mean noise levels compared to Thulio for LAeq (60.6 vs. 68.2 dB, p = 0.023) and L10 (61.5 vs. 70.6 dB, p = 0.023), while Moses had higher LAeq compared to Litho (63.1 vs. 60.6 dB, p = 0.043). Overall, Litho had the lowest noise levels, whereas Thulio had the highest. Survey responses paralleled these findings. Litho was associated with lower perceived overall effort (2.1 ± 0.9), while Moses demonstrated higher overall effort (3.6 ± 1.2) for communication and concentration (Figure 2). Significant pairwise differences were observed between Moses and Litho (all p < 0.05). Trends were consistent across sites. Conclusions Noise levels during HoLEP varied by laser technology and correlated with differences in perceived communication and cognitive effort. Litho demonstrated the lowest acoustic burden, while Moses and Thulio had higher noise exposure. These findings highlight the impact of laser selection on the OR environment and intraoperative team performance.

The performance of a deep learning model was not different from that of radiologists in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at MRI, and gradient-weighted class activation maps localized the tumor.

Background: MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) is under investigation for whole-gland ablation of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The ideal method for post-TULSA bladder drainage through postoperative suprapubic tube (SPT) vs indwelling urethral catheter (UC) has not been established. The objective of this study was to evaluate urinary outcomes after whole-gland TULSA, comparing postoperative SPT with UC. Materials and Methods: Two-institution retrospective analysis of whole-gland TULSA for men with grade group 1 and 2 prostate cancer. One institution placed SPT at the time of TULSA with clamp trials (day 10) and removal once voiding. The second placed UC until void trial (day 7). Outcomes included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), urinary bother score, catheter reinsertion, stricture, clean intermittent catheterization (CIC), and incontinence. Results: Forty-five patients (median age 67) were analyzed. The UC cohort ( N = 26) was older ( p = 0.007) than the SPT cohort ( N = 19) but with similar baseline prostate volumes, IPSS, and urinary bother scores. Patients receiving UC had fewer days with catheter ( p = 0.013). Although UC patients suffered more lower urinary tract symptoms at 1-month post-TULSA, there was no significant difference between IPSS scores at baseline and 6 months after surgery regardless of urinary management strategy, although the UC group noted significantly decreased urinary bother. Rates of infection were similar between groups. Six strictures were observed overall, with more in the SPT group, although the difference was not significant (4/19 [21.1%] SPT; 2/26 [7.7%] UC). At 6 months, incontinence rates were low and similar between groups (2/19 [10.5%] SPT; 4/26 [15.4%] UC) and only one patient (UC) required CIC. Conclusions: Our overall findings suggest that SPT and UC are both acceptable options for postoperative bladder drainage after whole-gland TULSA, with statistically similar rates of urinary complications but a slightly different side effect profile.

Purpose: MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) uses real-time MR thermometry feedback to target prostate disease. We systematically review the literature to synthesize efficacy, functional, and safety outcomes and assess the influence of planned ablation fraction on outcome. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 2021 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting at least one efficacy, functional, or safety outcome after a single TULSA treatment were included. The relationship of freedom from salvage treatment and potency preservation with planned ablation volume was modeled. Results: Two hundred twenty-four patients were treated in 10 studies with up to a 5-year follow-up, mainly for primary localized prostate cancer (PCa) plus smaller cohorts with recurrent PCa, and locally advanced PCa (LAPC). The prostate-specific antigen decline from baseline up to 2 years, including focal to whole-gland ablation plans, was 54% to 97%. The rate of salvage treatment after one TULSA treatment for primary PCa was 7% to 17%. Continence and potency preservation were from 92% to 100% and from 75% to 98%. Urinary symptoms were stable in men with good voiding function at baseline, and 85% of men with concurrent PCa and lower urinary tract symptoms met the criteria for improvement. Symptom relief in a small cohort of men with LAPC was observed. Grade III adverse events were incurred by 13/224 men (6%), with no rectal injury/fistula or Grade IV complication. The planned ablation fraction was linearly related to salvage-free survival. The relationship between potency preservation and planned ablation fraction followed a sigmoid curve. Conclusions: As an alternative to conventional treatments, TULSA is safe and effective for prostate tissue ablation in men with primary PCa. There is also evidence that TULSA delivers effective relief of urinary symptoms while treating PCa in a single, low-morbidity procedure. The likelihood of freedom from additional treatment or potency preservation is associated with the planned ablation fraction.