OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the thulium laser vaporesection and transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate for the treatment of high-risk patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. BACKGROUND DATA: From September 2009 to March 2011, 98 consecutive patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia received eitherthulium laser vaporesection of the prostate (n=42) or transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (n=56) at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Functional follow-up included measurement of International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life score, maximal urinary flow rate, and post-voiding residual urine volume. All complications were recorded. RESULTS:Thulium laser vaporesection of the prostate was slightly superior to transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate in catheterization time (2.1±0.9 vs. 4.5±1.3 days, p<0.0001) and postoperative hospital stay (4.4±1.8 vs. 6.6±2.0 days, p<0.0001). Within the observation period, both groups had a significant improvement from baseline in subjective or objective success rates; however, no significant difference was found between the two groups. Peri- and postoperative complications were fewer in the thulium laser group. CONCLUSIONS:Thulium laser vaporesection of the prostate is as effective as transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate in managing high-risk patients, with sufficient tissue ablation and acceptable hemostasis, and has the advantage of less morbidity and shorter catheter time and postoperative hospital stay.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the thulium laser vaporesection and transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate for the treatment of high-risk patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. BACKGROUND DATA: From September 2009 to March 2011, 98 consecutive patients with symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia received either thulium laser vaporesection of the prostate (n=42) or transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (n=56) at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Functional follow-up included measurement of International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life score, maximal urinary flow rate, and post-voiding residual urine volume. All complications were recorded. RESULTS:Thulium laser vaporesection of the prostate was slightly superior to transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate in catheterization time (2.1±0.9 vs. 4.5±1.3 days, p<0.0001) and postoperative hospital stay (4.4±1.8 vs. 6.6±2.0 days, p<0.0001). Within the observation period, both groups had a significant improvement from baseline in subjective or objective success rates; however, no significant difference was found between the two groups. Peri- and postoperative complications were fewer in the thulium laser group. CONCLUSIONS:Thulium laser vaporesection of the prostate is as effective as transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate in managing high-risk patients, with sufficient tissue ablation and acceptable hemostasis, and has the advantage of less morbidity and shorter catheter time and postoperative hospital stay.