Citations

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.

Objectives: The aims of the study are to develop a prostate cancer risk prediction model that combines clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–related findings and to assess the impact of adding Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥3 lesions-level findings on its diagnostic performance. Methods: This 3-center retrospective study included prostate MRI examinations performed with clinical suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) between 2018 and 2022. Pathological diagnosis within 1 year after the MRI was used to diagnose csPCa. Seven clinical, 3 patient-level MRI-related, and 4 lesion-level MRI-related findings were extracted. After feature selection, 2 logistic regression models with and without lesions-level findings were created using data from facility I and II (development cohort). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between the 2 models was compared in the PI-RADS ≥3 population in the development cohort and Facility III (validation cohort) using the Delong test. Interfacility differences of the selected predictive variables were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test or chi-squared test. Results: Selected lesion-level features included the peripheral zone involvement and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. The model with lesions-level findings had significantly higher AUC than the model without in 655 examinations in the development cohort (0.81 vs 0.79, respectively, P = 0.005), but not in 553 examinations in the validation cohort (0.77 vs 0.76, respectively). Large interfacility differences were seen in the ADC distribution (P < 0.001) and csPCa proportion in PI-RADS 3–5 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Adding lesions-level findings improved the csPCa discrimination in the development but not the validation cohort. Interfacility differences impeded model generalization, including the distribution of reported ADC values and PI-RADS score-level csPCa proportion.

Abstract Introduction/ Background Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an increasingly popular size-independent technique of treating male voiding dysfunction due to benign prostatic hypertrophy. Some patients after HoLEP may develop clinically significant prostate cancer and opt for definitive treatment with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Little is known about the safety of EBRT after HoLEP and how it may functionally impact voiding after HoLEP has altered the anatomy of the prostate. Our study aimed to assess patient-reported voiding outcomes following EBRT after HoLEP with a focus on incontinence related patient outcomes. Methods/ Materials This study was conducted with approval from our hospital’s institutional review board. Patients that underwent HoLEP followed by EBRT were identified and data was collected in a retrospective nature from a single surgeon HoLEP cohort over the past 4 years (2019–2023). Patient demographics, disease and radiation therapy characteristics, radiation therapy, and baseline voiding symptoms were recorded. Current functional voiding outcomes were also collected via phone-call or portal communication in a cross-sectional manner with questions pertaining to type of incontinence, IPSS quality of life score, and administration of the Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index (M-ISI). Adverse events encountered during follow-up were recorded. Results 24 patients were identified who received RT for prostate cancer after HoLEP with an average age of 73.6 (+/- 5.3). One third of patients reported no incontinence whatsoever after radiation and of those who experienced incontinence, the majority felt that it was not worsened after radiation. Median IPSS QoL score following radiation was 1 (range 0–6), median M-ISI Severity Score was 4 out of a maximum of 32, and median M-ISI Bother Score was 0 out of a maximum of 8. One patient developed a bladder neck contracture (BNC) approximately 1 year following his radiation therapy (approximately 18 months after HoLEP) causing bothersome incontinence and LUTS. Conclusions In our cohort most patients who received RT after HoLEP reported a high urinary-symptom related quality of life and a low rate of urinary incontinence. One patient who received SBRT suffered a BNC which is a known adverse event with RT but given our small sample size it remains unclear if the risk is higher in patients receiving RT after HoLEP. Larger studies should focus on examining the rate of bladder neck contracture in patients receiving RT after HoLEP, particularly focusing on whether the degree of dose fractionation may impact their development.

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.