Morcellation Efficiency in Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Oscillating Morcellator Outperforms Reciprocating Morcellator With no Apparent Learning Curve.

OBJECTIVE To compare the morcellation efficiency of theWolf Piranha oscillating morcellator with the Lumenis VersaCut reciprocating morcellator. MATERIALS AND METHODS After institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. The first 41 cases of HoLEP with morcellation performed with the oscillating morcellator were matched by weight of resected tissue to 41 control patients from our historic data set who underwent morcellation with the reciprocating system. The primary outcome of interest was morcellation efficiency. We also evaluated surgeon experience level to assess for a learning curve with the oscillating morcellator. RESULTS The 41 patients from each group were comparable in terms of age, prostate size, continuation of aspirin, and catheter status. The oscillating morcellation efficiency was nearly double that of the reciprocating morcellator (8.6 g/min [range: 3.0-18.3] vs 3.8 g/min [range: 0.9-10.1], P <. 0001). Mean resected weights for cases with the oscillating and reciprocating instruments were 69 g (range: 17-224 g) and 69 g (range: 17-213 g), respectively (P =.9). The total operative time and complication rates did not significantly differ. For the oscillating system, morcellation efficiency for cases performed by staff alone was 9.8 g/min compared with 8.1 g/min when trainees were involved (P = .2), and there was no correlation between morcellation efficiency and number of cases performed (R = 0.01). CONCLUSION The oscillating morcellation system resulted in a morcellation efficiency double that of the reciprocating system for tissue retrieval after HoLEP. Achieving efficiency with the oscillating system was not associated with a significant learning curve and was not impacted by trainee involvement. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc.