Videosurgery
Single-port transvesical enucleation of a 903-ml prostate: technical adaptations for giant prostatic hyperplasia
Salim K. Younis, Lin Wang, Karim Daher, Mahmoud Abou Zeinab, Abdulrahman Al-Bayati, Nicolas A. Soputro, Mohamad Watfa, Samarpit Rai, Rui M. Bernardino, Riccardo Autorino, Jihad Kaouk
Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, United States of America
Citation: Younis SK, Wang L, Daher K, et al. Single-port transvesical enucleation of a 903-ml prostate: technical adaptations for giant prostatic hyperplasia. Cent European J Urol. 2026; 79: 207-208.
Key Words: single-port robotic surgery

Giant prostatic hyperplasia (GPH), defined as prostate volume ≥500 ml, is exceptionally rare, with fewer than 40 cases reported since 1919 [1]. Management has traditionally relied on open surgery or conservative drainage [2–4], while minimally invasive approaches for glands of this magnitude remain uncommon [5–9].
We present a video demonstration of single-port transvesical enucleation of the prostate (STEP) [10, 11] performed in an 83-year-old man with severe lower urinary tract symptoms, chronic catheterization, and a 903-ml prostate on magnetic resonance imaging. Due to extensive prior abdominal surgery, a transvesical, extraperitoneal single-port approach was selected [12, 13]. Key technical steps included modified transvesical access to optimize working space, staged cut-and-roll enucleation of a massive intravesical median lobe, Foley-assisted suction for hemostatic control in hypervascular tissue, and low-pressure pneumovesicum to facilitate bladder neck reconstruction [10].
Total console time was 280 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 600 ml requiring transfusion. A total of 570 g of adenoma was removed, with pathology confirming benign prostatic hyperplasia. Continuous bladder irrigation was not required. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 4, with catheter removal on day 9. At 3 months, he was continent with marked symptom improvement and PSA 0.43 ng/ml. At 9 months, he remained symptom-free with a maximum urine flow rate of 15.1 ml/s and post-void residual 31 ml.
This video highlights technical adaptations that enable safe single-port transvesical enucleation in extreme GPH. STEP may represent a feasible minimally invasive alternative to open surgery in selected patients, including those with hostile abdomens, when performed in experienced centers.

References
  1. Fishman JR, Merrill DC. A case of giant prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 1993; 42: 336-337.
  2. Ojewola RW, Tijani KH, Fatuga AL, Onyeze CI, Okeke CJ. Management of a Giant Prostatic Enlargement: Case Report and Review of the Literature. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2020; 27: 242-247.
  3. Yilmaz K, Istanbulluoglu O, Guven S, Kilinc M. Giant prostatic hyperplasia: Case report. Int Urol Nephrol. 2006; 38: 587-589.
  4. Quaresima L, Tramanzoli P, Fasanella D, Galosi AB, Giannubilo W. Conservative approach for a giant prostatic hyperplasia of 1280 ml: a case report and literature review. J Surg Case Rep. 2023; 2023: rjad422.
  5. Bhatia S, Kava B, Pereira K, Kably I, Harward S, Narayanan G. Prostate Artery Embolization for Giant Prostatic Hyperplasia. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015; 26: 1583-1585.
  6. Cui D, Chen G, Luo J, Zhang M. The first case of bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate for giant prostatic hyperplasia: A case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022; 101: e32455.
  7. Zeng QS, Zhao YB, Wang BQ, Ying M, Hu WL. Minimally invasive simple prostatectomy for a case of giant benign prostatic hyperplasia. Asian J Androl. 2017; 19: 717-718.
  8. Borojeni S, Kosseifi F, Dallongeville A, Durand X. Holmium laser enucleation of a 696 cc prostate (HoLEP): The largest reported in the literature. Urol Case Rep. 2022; 45: 102203.
  9. Carbonara U, Osardu RK, Cisu TI, Balthazar A, Crocerossa F, Autorino R. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for giant benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cent European J Urol. 2020; 73: 383-384.
  10. Ramos R, Ferguson E, Abou Zeinab M, et al. Single-port Transvesical Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2024; 85: 445-456.
  11. Abou Zeinab M, Kaviani A, Ferguson E, et al. Single-port transvesical versus open simple prostatectomy: a perioperative comparative study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023; 26: 538-542.
  12. Goldfarb MA, Protyniak B, Schultheis M. Hostile Abdomen Index Risk Stratification and Laparoscopic Complications. JSLS. 2014; 18: 14-19.
  13. Ferguson EL, Ramos-Carpinteyro R, Soputro N, Chavali JS, Geskin A, Kaouk JH. Single-Port Robotic Radical Prostatectomy Using Transvesical and Transperineal Access in Patients with a Hostile Abdomen. J Endourol. 2024; 38: 150-158.
Article history
Submitted: 19 January, 2026
Accepted: 22 January, 2026
Published online: 26 March, 2026
doi: 10.5173/ceju.2026.0026
Corresponding author
Jihad Kaouk
email: kaoukj@ccf.org
Conflicts of interest:  The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).
Current issue
Ahead of print
Issue: 2026
Vol. 79, No. 1
Issue: 2025
Vol. 78, No. 4 Vol. 78, No. 3 Vol. 78, No. 2 Vol. 78, No. 1
Issue: 2024
Vol. 77, No. 4 Vol. 77, No. 3 Vol. 77, No. 2 Vol. 77, No. 1
Issue: 2023
Vol. 76, No. 4 Vol. 76, No. 3 Vol. 76, No. 2 Vol. 76, No. 1
Issue: 2022
Vol. 75, No. 4 Vol. 75, No. 3 Vol. 75, No. 2 Vol. 75, No. 1
Issue: 2021
Vol. 74, No. 4 Vol. 74, No. 3 Vol. 74, No. 2 Vol. 74, No. 1
Issue: 2020
Vol. 73, No. 4 Vol. 73, No. 3 Vol. 73, No. 2 Vol. 73, No. 1
Issue: 2019
Vol. 72, No. 4 Vol. 72, No. 3 Vol. 72, No. 2 Vol. 72, No. 1
Issue: 2018
Vol. 71, No. 4 Vol. 71, No. 3 Vol. 71, No. 2 Vol. 71, No. 1
Issue: 2017
Vol. 70, No. 4 Vol. 70, No. 3 Vol. 70, No. 2 Vol. 70, No. 1
Issue: 2016
Vol. 69, No. 4 Vol. 69, No. 3 Vol. 69, No. 2 Vol. 69, No. 1
Issue: 2015
Vol. 68, No. 4 Vol. 68, No. 3 Vol. 68, No. 2 Vol. 68, No. 1
Issue: 2014
Vol. 67, No. 4 Vol. 67, No. 3 Vol. 67, No. 2 Vol. 67, No. 1
Issue: 2013
Vol. 66, No. 4 Vol. 66, No. 3 Vol. 66, No. 2 Vol. 66, No. 1
Issue: 2012
Vol. 65, No. 4 Vol. 65, No. 3 Vol. 65, No. 2 Vol. 65, No. 1
Issue: 2011
Vol. 64, No. 4 Vol. 64, No. 3 Vol. 64, No. 2 Vol. 64, No. 1
Issue: 2010
Vol. 63, No. 4 Vol. 63, No. 3 Vol. 63, No. 2 Vol. 63, No. 1
Issue: 2009
Vol. 62, No. 4 Vol. 62, No. 3 Vol. 62, No. 2 Vol. 62, No. 1
Loading...
Logo CEJU