BACKGROUND: Evidence supporting the widespread use of GreenLight High Performance System (HPS) 120-W photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the noninferiority of PVP compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on urinary symptoms and the superiority of PVP over TURP on length of hospital stay. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent monopolar TURP or PVP with the GreenLight HPS 120-W laser. MEASUREMENTS: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Euro-QOL questionnaire, uroflowmetry, Danish Prostate Symptom ScoreSexual Function Questionnaire, sexual satisfaction, andadverse events were collected at 1, 3, 6, and 12 mo. The two groups were compared using the 95% confidence interval (CI) of median difference for testing noninferiority of the IPSS at 12 mo and the student t test for testing the difference in length of hospital stay. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 139 patients (70 vs 69 men in each group) were randomized. Median IPSS scores at 12-mo follow-up were 5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3-8) for TURP versus 6 (IQR: 3-9) for PVP, and the 95% CI of the difference of the median was equal to -2 to 3. Because the upper limit of the 95% CI was >2 (the noninferiority margin), the hypothesis of noninferiority could not be considered demonstrated. Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the PVP group than in the TURP group, with a median of 1 (IQR: 1-2) versus 2.5 (IQR: 2-3.5), respectively (p<0.0001). Uroflowmetry parameters and complications were comparable in both groups. Sexual outcomes were slightly better in the PVP group without reaching statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to demonstrate the noninferiority of 120-W GreenLight PVP versus TURP on prostate symptoms at 1 yr but showed that PVP was associated with a shorter length of stay in the hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01043588.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Evidence supporting the widespread use of GreenLight High Performance System (HPS) 120-W photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the noninferiority of PVP compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on urinary symptoms and the superiority of PVP over TURP on length of hospital stay. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent monopolar TURP or PVP with the GreenLight HPS 120-W laser. MEASUREMENTS: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Euro-QOL questionnaire, uroflowmetry, Danish Prostate Symptom Score Sexual Function Questionnaire, sexual satisfaction, and adverse events were collected at 1, 3, 6, and 12 mo. The two groups were compared using the 95% confidence interval (CI) of median difference for testing noninferiority of the IPSS at 12 mo and the student t test for testing the difference in length of hospital stay. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 139 patients (70 vs 69 men in each group) were randomized. Median IPSS scores at 12-mo follow-up were 5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3-8) for TURP versus 6 (IQR: 3-9) for PVP, and the 95% CI of the difference of the median was equal to -2 to 3. Because the upper limit of the 95% CI was >2 (the noninferiority margin), the hypothesis of noninferiority could not be considered demonstrated. Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the PVP group than in the TURP group, with a median of 1 (IQR: 1-2) versus 2.5 (IQR: 2-3.5), respectively (p<0.0001). Uroflowmetry parameters and complications were comparable in both groups. Sexual outcomes were slightly better in the PVP group without reaching statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to demonstrate the noninferiority of 120-W GreenLight PVP versus TURP on prostate symptoms at 1 yr but showed that PVP was associated with a shorter length of stay in the hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01043588.
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
Authors: Thomas Hermanns; Oliver Gross; Benedikt Kranzbühler; Lukas J Hefermehl; Cédric Poyet; Alexander Müller; Stanley A Yap; Maurice S Michel; Daniel Eberli; Michael Müntener; Matthias Zimmermann; Tullio Sulser; Hans-Helge Seifert Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Alexandre Larouche; Andreas Becker; Jonas Schiffmann; Florian Roghmann; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nawar Hanna; Zhe Tian; Paul Perrotte; Thorsten Schlomm; Markus Graefen; Sascha Ahyai; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; John M Hollingsworth; Samuel R Kaufman; Brent K Hollenbeck; John T Wei Journal: Urology Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; John M Hollingsworth; Brent K Hollenbeck; Bruce L Jacobs; Anne M Suskind; Aruna V Sarma; John T Wei Journal: Urology Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 2.649