18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      High-power holmium laser versus thulium fiber laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate in patients with glands larger than 80 ml: Results from the Prostate Endoscopic EnucLeation study group

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) has gained acceptance as an equitable alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Our primary aim is to compare peri-operative outcomes of EEP using thulium fiber laser (TFL) against high-power holmium laser (HPHL) in hands of experienced surgeons for large prostates (≥80 ml in volume). Secondary outcomes were assess complications within 1 year of follow up.

          Materials and Methods

          We retrospectively reviewed patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent EEP with TFL or HPHL in 13 centers (January 2019-January 2023). Patients with prostate volume ≥80 ml were included, while those with concomitant prostate cancer, previous prostate/urethral surgery, and pelvic radiotherapy were excluded.

          Results

          Of 1,929 included patients, HPHL was utilized in 1,459 and TFL in 470. After propensity score matching (PSM) for baseline characteristics, 247 patients from each group were analyzed. Overall operative time (90 [70, 120] vs. 52.5 [39, 93] min, P < 0.001) and enucleation time (90 [70, 105] vs. 38 [25, 70] min, P < 0.001) were longer in the TFL group, with comparable morcellation time (13 [10, 19.5] vs. 13 [10, 16.5] min, P = 0.914). In terms of postoperative outcomes, there were no differences in 30-day complications such as acute urinary retention, urinary tract infection or sepsis. In the PSM cohort, univariable analyses showed that higher age, lower preoperative Qmax, higher preoperative PVRU, and longer operation time were associated with higher odds of postoperative incontinence, while 2-lobe enucleation had lower odds of incontinence compared to 3-lobe enucleation.

          Conclusions

          This real-world study reaffirms that HPHL and TFL in large prostates are equally efficacious in terms of 30-day complications. TFL with the en-bloc technique has a shorter operative time which significantly improves short- and medium-term functional outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate: results at 7 years.

          To assess the durability of holmium laser enucleation of prostate in comparison to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Patients were enrolled in the present study between June 1997 and December 2000 and followed per protocol. All patients were urodynamically obstructed with a prostate volume of between 40 and 200 mL. At long-term follow-up, variables assessed included Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII), International Continence Society Short Form Male questionnaire (ICSmale-SF) and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Adverse events, including the need for retreatment, were specifically assessed. Thirty-one (14 holmium laser enucleation of the prostate [HoLEP] and 17 TURP) of the initial 61 patients were available, with 12 deceased and 18 lost to follow-up. The mean (range) follow-up was 7.6 (5.9-10.0) years and the mean (±sd) age at follow-up was 79.8 (±6.2) years. The mean (±sd) values (HoLEP vs TURP) were as follows: maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)), 22.09 ± 15.47 vs 17.83 ± 8.61 mL/s; American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score, 8.0 ± 5.2 vs 10.3 ± 7.42; quality of life (QOL) score 1.47 ± 1.31 vs 1.31 ± 0.85; BPHII, 1.53 ± 2.9 vs 0.58 ± 0.79; IIEF-EF (erectile function), 11.6 ± 7.46 vs 9.21 ± 7.17; ICSmale Voiding Score (VS), 4.2 ± 3.76 vs 3.0 ± 2.41; ICSmale Incontinence Score (IS), 3.07 ± 3.3 vs 1.17 ± 1.4. There were no significant differences in any variable between the two groups beyond the first year. Of the assessable patients, none required re-operation for recurrent BPH in the HoLEP arm and three (of 17) required re-operation in the TURP arm . The results of this randomized trial confirm that HoLEP is at least equivalent to TURP in the long term with fewer re-operations being necessary. © 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: results from a 2-center, prospective, randomized trial in patients with obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia.

            To our knowledge we report the first multicenter, prospective, randomized study comparing holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) and transurethral prostate resection (TURP) for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. From January to October 2002, 100 consecutive patients with symptomatic obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized at 2 centers to surgical treatment with HoLEP (52 in group 1) or TURP (48 in group 2). Patients in the 2 groups were preoperatively assessed by scoring subjective symptoms questionnaires. Preoperative and perioperative parameters were also evaluated, the latter at 1, 6 and 12 months of followup. At baseline all patients had obstruction (Schäfer grade greater than 2). At the 1, 6 and 12-month followups no statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in terms of urodynamic findings and subjective symptom scoring. In the HoLEP group mean total time in the operating room +/- SD was significantly longer than for TURP (74 +/- 19.5 vs 57 +/- 15 minutes, p < 0.05), while catheterization time (31 +/- 13 vs 57.78 +/- 17.5 minutes, p < 0.001 and hospital stay (59 +/- 19.9 vs 85.8 +/- 18.9 hours, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the HoLEP group. Transient stress and urge incontinence were more common in the HoLEP group, although at the 12-month followup results were comparable. The overall complication rate was comparable in the 2 groups. Erectile function was also maintained in the followup period from baseline in each group, as expected. HoLEP and TURP were equally effective for relieving obstruction and lower urinary tract symptoms. HoLEP was associated with shorter catheterization time and hospital stay. At 1 year of followup complications were similar in the 2 groups.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Thulium laser versus holmium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate: 18-month follow-up data of a single center.

              To compare the clinical outcomes between thulium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) (70 W) and holmium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) (90 W) in a prospective randomized trial with 18 months of follow-up. Both ThuLEP and HoLEP effectively relieve the obstructive symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A total of 133 consecutive patients with BPH were randomized to either ThuLEP (n = 71) or HoLEP (n = 62). An energy setting of 70 W and 90 W was used for the thulium and holmium laser in the enucleation procedure, respectively. The mushroom technique was used to fragment the enucleated lobes with the resection loop. The preoperative and postoperative parameters were compared. ThuLEP required a longer operation time (72.4 vs 61.5 minutes, P = .034) but resulted in less blood loss than HoLEP (130.0 vs 166.6 mL, P = .045). The catheterization time was comparable. At 18 months, the lower urinary tract symptom indexes were improved significantly in both groups compared with the baseline values. The International Prostate Symptom Score decreased to 5.2 in the ThuLEP group and 6.2 in the HoLEP group. The quality of life score and peak urinary flow rate were similar between the 2 groups (1.3 vs 1.2 and 23.4 vs 24.2 mL/s) and the postvoid residual urine volume decreased by 82.50% and 81.73% in the ThuLEP and HoLEP groups, respectively. The mean prostate-specific antigen decrease after HoLEP and ThuLEP was 30.43% and 43.36%, respectively. No urethral or bladder neck stricture were found in either group. Both ThuLEP (70 W) and HoLEP (90 W) relieve lower urinary tract symptoms equally with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in blood loss and inferior to HoLEP in operation time, although the differences were clinically negligible. The mushroom technique could be adequate, without an additional mechanical tissue morcellator. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Prostate Int
                Prostate Int
                Prostate International
                Asian Pacific Prostate Society
                2287-8882
                2287-903X
                13 December 2023
                March 2024
                13 December 2023
                : 12
                : 1
                : 40-45
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
                [b ]Urology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria delle Marche, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
                [c ]Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
                [d ]Department of Urology, Ankara University, School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
                [e ]Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                [f ]Department of Urology and Robotic Surgery, ICUA-Clínica CEMTRO, Madrid, Spain
                [g ]Department of Urology, Kantonspital Frauenfeld, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland
                [h ]Department of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore
                [i ]Urology Division, Akfa Medline Hospital, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
                [j ]Urology Unit, IRCCS INRCA, Ancona, Italy
                [k ]Department of Urology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
                [l ]Department of Urology, Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
                [m ]Department of Urology, Saint Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint Petersburg, Russia
                [n ]Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                [o ]Department of Urology, Sai Urology Hospital and MGM Medical College, Aurangabad, India
                [p ]Urology Department, Tashkent Medical Academy, Uzbekistan
                [q ]S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, 169608, Singapore. eejeanlim@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S2287-8882(23)00072-7
                10.1016/j.prnil.2023.12.001
                10960086
                38523902
                b0831d0b-c273-4580-8b72-f12fc8ced4d0
                © 2024 The Asian Pacific Prostate Society. Published by Elsevier B.V.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 3 October 2023
                : 9 December 2023
                : 11 December 2023
                Categories
                Research Article

                endoscopic enucleation of the prostate,laser therapy,prostatic hyperplasia,postoperative complications,urinary incontinence

                Comments

                Comment on this article