PURPOSE: Thulium:YAG (Tm:YAG) vaporesection has been introduced and efficiency was shown on smaller prostates. Criticism mainly referred to prolonged operation time in larger prostates, which appears to be a potential limitation compared to HoLEP. Aim of the study was to evaluate feasibility and efficiency of Tm:YAG VapoEnucleation in larger prostates. METHODS: VapoEnucleation was performed using a 70 W continuous wave-laser. After enucleation tissue was morcellated within the bladder. Prospectively assessed outcomes were improvement in urodynamic parameter and the intra- and postoperative course. Complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 88 consecutive patients with prostatic enlargement underwent VapoEnucleation. Prostatic volume was 61.3 +/- 24.0 cc (30-160). OR-time was 72 min +/- 26.6 (35-144) and laser-time 32.4 +/- 10.1 min (16.3-59.3). Applied laser energy was 123.7 +/- 40.6 kJ (67.8-240.9). An average of 31.7 +/- 18.3 g of tissue was retrieved. Pathology revealed four patients with incidental carcinoma. Foley catheter-time was 2 days and the suprapubic tube, if placed, was removed on the third postoperative day on average. Twelve complications were recorded, including bleeding (3), urinary tract infection (6), second-look procedure, due to insufficient deobstruction (2). Re-catherization after successful initial voiding trial was necessary in one patient. Mean peak flow rate improved from 3.5 +/- 4.7 to 19.8 +/- 11.6 ml/s and post-voiding residual urine decreased from 121.4 +/- 339.9 to 22.4 +/- 32.7 ml. CONCLUSION: The functional outcomes demonstrate efficiency of Tm:YAG VapoEnucleation for patients with larger prostates. From our experience, learning curve in VapoEnucleation is short and complications are minimal. Theoretically, no limitation in prostate size occurs. Long-term follow-up is needed to prove durability.
PURPOSE: Thulium:YAG (Tm:YAG) vaporesection has been introduced and efficiency was shown on smaller prostates. Criticism mainly referred to prolonged operation time in larger prostates, which appears to be a potential limitation compared to HoLEP. Aim of the study was to evaluate feasibility and efficiency of Tm:YAG VapoEnucleation in larger prostates. METHODS: VapoEnucleation was performed using a 70 W continuous wave-laser. After enucleation tissue was morcellated within the bladder. Prospectively assessed outcomes were improvement in urodynamic parameter and the intra- and postoperative course. Complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 88 consecutive patients with prostatic enlargement underwent VapoEnucleation. Prostatic volume was 61.3 +/- 24.0 cc (30-160). OR-time was 72 min +/- 26.6 (35-144) and laser-time 32.4 +/- 10.1 min (16.3-59.3). Applied laser energy was 123.7 +/- 40.6 kJ (67.8-240.9). An average of 31.7 +/- 18.3 g of tissue was retrieved. Pathology revealed four patients with incidental carcinoma. Foley catheter-time was 2 days and the suprapubic tube, if placed, was removed on the third postoperative day on average. Twelve complications were recorded, including bleeding (3), urinary tract infection (6), second-look procedure, due to insufficient deobstruction (2). Re-catherization after successful initial voiding trial was necessary in one patient. Mean peak flow rate improved from 3.5 +/- 4.7 to 19.8 +/- 11.6 ml/s and post-voiding residual urine decreased from 121.4 +/- 339.9 to 22.4 +/- 32.7 ml. CONCLUSION: The functional outcomes demonstrate efficiency of Tm:YAG VapoEnucleation for patients with larger prostates. From our experience, learning curve in VapoEnucleation is short and complications are minimal. Theoretically, no limitation in prostate size occurs. Long-term follow-up is needed to prove durability.
Authors: Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl; Stephanie Huckele; Patrick Honeck; Peter Alken; Thomas Knoll; Maurice Stephan Michel; Axel Häcker Journal: J Endourol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Vincenzo Serretta; Giuseppe Morgia; Luigi Fondacaro; Gaetano Curto; Antonio Lo bianco; Domenico Pirritano; Darwin Melloni; Fausto Orestano; Mario Motta; Michele Pavone-Macaluso Journal: Urology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Peter J Gilling; Tevita F Aho; Christopher M Frampton; Colleen J King; Mark R Fraundorfer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-04-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Thorsten Bach; Thomas R W Herrmann; Roman Ganzer; Martin Burchardt; Andreas J Gross Journal: World J Urol Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: T Bschleipfer; T Bach; R Berges; K Dreikorn; C Gratzke; S Madersbacher; M-S Michel; R Muschter; M Oelke; O Reich; C Tschuschke; K Höfner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 0.639