POL Scientific / JBM / Volume 12 / Issue 3 / DOI: 10.14440/jbm.2025.0002
Cite this article
9
Download
36
Citations
181
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
BRIEF REPORT

Shifts in clinical practice and patient demographics following the introduction of holmium laser enucleation for benign prostatic hyperplasia in a general urology clinic

Ankur U. Choksi1 Shayan Smani1 Soum D. Lokeshwar1 Vinaik M. Sundaresan1 Christopher S. Hayden1 Daniel A. Segal1 Daniel S. Kellner1*
Show Less
1 Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06510, United States of America
JBM 2025 , 12(3), e99010069; https://doi.org/10.14440/jbm.2025.0002
Submitted: 6 January 2025 | Revised: 30 May 2025 | Accepted: 9 July 2025 | Published: 20 August 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Background: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has emerged as an effective surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This study evaluated how the adoption of HoLEP in a general urology clinic influenced clinical and procedural volume. Objective: To better understand the practice ramifications of HoLEP adoption, we analyzed the changes to a general urologist’s patient demographics and practice patterns after the addition of HoLEP to their surgical repertoire. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records 30 months before and after the introduction of HoLEP to examine changes in a general urologist’s patient population. Pearson’s Chi-squared test and Student’s t-test were used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 4390 unique patients were seen over a period of 5-years, with 2052 seen before and 2338 after the introduction of HoLEP. The mean distance from patients’ residence zip codes to the treatment center remained statistically unchanged (pre-HoLEP: 32.52 ± 152.42 miles, post-HoLEP: 29.65 ± 141.79 miles, p=0.9896). Among those who underwent HoLEP, prostate sizes were comparable between patients residing in the same county and those coming from different counties (96.42 ± 3.24 cc vs. 104.52 ± 4.34 cc, p=0.141). Surgical volume rose from 355 to 1018 cases with a concordant increase in other BPH-related surgeries, marked by an inflection point at the time of HoLEP’s introduction. Conclusion: There was an increase in clinical and surgical volume to an established general urologist’s practice after HoLEP was offered. Most patients continued to be drawn from the initial catchment area, potentially reflecting previously unmet treatment needs for patients with large prostate glands.

Keywords
Benign prostatic hyperplasia
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate
Ambulatory
Prostate surgery
Funding
None.
References
  1. Parsons JK. Benign prostatic hyperplasia and male lower urinary tract symptoms: Epidemiology and risk factors. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep. 2010;5(4):212-218. doi: 10.1007/s11884-010-0067-2

 

  1. Welliver C, Feinstein L, Ward JB, et al. Trends in lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia, 2004 to 2013: The urologic diseases in america project. J Urol. 2020;203(1):171-178. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000499

 

  1. Verhamme KM, Dieleman JP, Bleumink GS, et al. Incidence and prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia in primary care--the triumph project. Eur Urol. 2002;42(4):323-328. doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00354-8

 

  1. Young MJ, Elmussareh M, Morrison T, Wilson JR. The changing practice of transurethral resection of the prostate. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018;100(4):326-329. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0054

 

  1. Kim A, Hak AJ, Choi WS, et al. Comparison of long-term effect and complications between holmium laser enucleation and transurethral resection of prostate: Nations-wide health insurance study. Urology. 2021;154:300-307. doi: 10.1016/j. urology.2021.04.010

 

  1. Kim SH, Yang HK, Lee HE, Paick JS, Oh SJ. HoLEP does not affect the overall sexual function of BPH patients: A prospective study. Asian J Androl. 2014;16(6):873-877. doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.132469

 

  1. Press B, Gardezi M, Kim DD, et al. Ejaculatory preserving holmium laser enucleation of the median lobe: Preserving sexual function while improving urinary outcomes. Urology. 2023;173:175-179. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.12.035

 

  1. Elmansy HM, Kotb A, Elhilali MM. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Long-term durability of clinical outcomes and complication rates during 10 years of followup. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1972-1976. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.065

 

  1. Herrmann TR, Gravas S, De la Rosette JJ, Wolters M, Anastasiadis AG, Giannakis I. Lasers in transurethral enucleation of the prostate-do we really need them. J Clin Med. 2020;9(5):1412. doi: 10.3390/jcm9051412.

 

  1. Foster HE, Dahm P, Kohler TS, Lerner LB, Wilt TJ. Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA guideline amendment 2019. J Urol. 2019;202(3):592-598. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000319

 

  1. Robles J, Pais V, Miller N. Mind the gaps: Adoption and underutilization of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in the united states from 2008 to 2014. J Endourol. 2020;34(7):770-776. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0603

 

  1. Kampantais S, Dimopoulos P, Tasleem A, Acher P, Gordon K, Young A. Assessing the learning curve of holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP). A systematic review. Urology. 2018;120:9-22. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.012

 

  1. Chavali JSS, Rivera ME, Lingeman JE. HoLEP Learning curve-resident perspective: Survey of senior residents from high-volume tertiary center. J Endourol 2024;38(9):977-981. doi: 10.1089/end.2024.0054

 

  1. Vincent MW, Gilling PJ. HoLEP has come of age. World J Urol. 2015;33(4):487-493. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1443-x

 

  1. Grimsby G, Humphreys M. The HoLEP effect: Changing practice patterns and resident education at a tertiary care center. J Urol. 2013;189(4 Suppl):e887. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.1796

 

  1. Wilson N, Mikhail M, Acher P, Lodge R, Young A. Introducing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate alongside transurethral resection of the prostate improves outcomes of each procedure. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013;95(5):365-368. doi: 10.1308/003588413X13629960046273

 

  1. Wilson LC, Gilling PJ, Williams A, et al. A randomised trial comparing holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection in the treatment of prostates larger than 40 grams: Results at 2 years. Eur Urol. 2006;50(3):569-573. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.04.002

 

  1. Anderson BB, Heiman J, Large T, Lingeman J, Krambeck A. Trends and perioperative outcomes across major benign prostatic hyperplasia procedures from the ACS-NSQIP 2011- 2015. J Endourol. 2019;33(1)62-68. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0266

 

  1. Enikeev D, Glybochko P, Rapoport L, et al. A randomized trial comparing The learning curve of 3 endoscopic enucleation techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH using mentoring approach-initial results. Urology. 2018;121:51-57. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.045

 

  1. Wright HC, Fedrigon D, De S. Learning from those who learned: A survey of fellowship trained HoLEP surgeons and their current practice patterns. Urology. 2021;149:193-198. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.023

 

  1. Kuntz RM, Ahyai S, Lehrich K, Fayad A. Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection of the prostate: A randomized prospective trial in 200 patients. J Urol. 2004;172(3):1012-1016. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000136218.11998.9e
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Share
Back to top
Journal of Biological Methods, Electronic ISSN: 2326-9901 Print ISSN: TBA, Published by POL Scientific