Literature DB >> 23268717

Comparison of techniques for transurethral laser prostatectomy: standard photoselective vaporization of the prostate versus transurethral laser enucleation of the prostate.

Dean S Elterman1, Bilal Chughtai, Richard Lee, Lauren Kurlander, Marika Yip-Bannicq, Steven A Kaplan, Alexis E Te.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Transurethral laser enucleation of the prostate (TLEP) using the potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser offers an alternative technique to traditional photovaporization. The study objective was to determine the comparative efficacy between transurethral photovaporization of the prostate (PVP) with a TLEP technique using the 80W 532 nm KTP laser. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 97 vs 170 patients who underwent PVP vs TLEP, respectively, with the KTP laser system at Weill Cornell Medical College from September 2001 to May 2009 was studied retrospectively. Outcome measures included laser time, prostate volume lased per unit time, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), postvoid residual (PVR), and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Statistical analyses were performed using the Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and unpaired t tests.
RESULTS: Baseline parameters were similar between groups, although volume was greater in the TLEP group (83 vs 63 cc, P=0.04). Median laser time was longer in the TLEP group (90 vs 50 min, P<0.001) with a higher median energy used (308 vs 165 kJ, P<0.001). The volume lased per unit time was shorter, however, for TLEP (0.92 cc/min) than for PVP (1.26 cc/min). A greater median number of fibers were used in TLEP (2.5 vs 2.0, P=0.001). Improvements in median IPSS and PVR were seen in the TLEP group (5.0, P<0.001; 55.5, P=0.02, respectively) but not in the PVP group (P=0.40 and 0.30). Median Qmax and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level improved similarly in both groups. Final IPSS was lower for the TLEP group (P<0.001), but other final parameters were statistically equivalent.
CONCLUSIONS: In our series, both PVP and TLEP techniques were safe and effective. Although changes in Qmax and PSA were similar between the two techniques, improvement in urinary symptoms and PVR was superior with the TLEP technique. The TLEP technique was a more efficient method for laser prostatectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23268717     DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0561

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  6 in total

1.  Best of the AUA Annual Meeting: Highlights From the 2011 American Urological Association Meeting, May 14-19, 2011, Washington, DC.

Authors:  Michael K Brawer; Stacy Loeb; Alan W Partin; Jayabalan Nirmal; Michael B Chancellor; J Curtis Nickel; Jacob Rajfer; Ellen Shapiro; Claus G Roehrborn
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2011

Review 2.  Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Review of Modern Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatments.

Authors:  Tony Nimeh; Brenden Magnan; Y Zaki Almallah
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.513

3.  Laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: perioperative outcomes from the ACS NSQIP database.

Authors:  Nassib Abou Heidar; Muhieddine Labban; Vincent Misrai; Aurelie Mailhac; Hani Tamim; Albert El-Hajj
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-02-08       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Comparison of Emergency Room Visits and Rehospitalization for Bleeding Complications following Transurethral Procedures for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Shih-Liang Chen; Chih-Kai Hsu; Chun-Hsiang Wang; Che-Jui Yang; Ting-Jui Chang; Yu-Hsuan Chuang; Yuan-Tsung Tseng
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 5.  Recent advances in prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  Alexis E Te
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-08-29

6.  Endoscopic enucleation vs endoscopic vaporization procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia: how should we choose: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xinbao Yin; Jun Chen; Hui Sun; Ming Liu; Zehua Wang; Benkang Shi; Xueping Zheng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.