C Netsch1, T Knoll2, A J Gross3, G Wendt-Nordahl2. 1. Abteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22291, Hamburg, Deutschland. c.netsch@asklepios.com. 2. Abteilung für Urologie, Urologische Klinik Sindelfingen, Sindelfingen, Deutschland. 3. Abteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22291, Hamburg, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown that thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) is a size-independent minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement. All ThuVEP series have been performed with a 2-µm thulium laser device so far. The aim of this study was to evaluate the complications and early postoperative results of two thulium-devices with different wavelengths for ThuVEP in prostates larger than 80 ml. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective bi-centric matched-paired analysis with 296 patients was performed. Based on prostate size, 148 were matched at each centre and laser device, respectively. A 2-µm (RevoLix, LISA Laser products, Katlenburg, Germany n=148) and a 1.9-µm (vela XL, starmedtec, Starnberg, Germany, n=148) thulium laser with a power output of 90 and 80 W was used. Patients' data were assessed and compared. RESULTS: The median prostate volume (interquartile) was 100 ml (range 86.25-120 ml). At discharge, Qmax (preoperative 7.9 and 9 ml/s vs. postoperative 19.35 and 16.2 ml/s) and postvoiding-residual urine (preoperative 130 and 45 ml vs. postoperative 20 and 25 ml) were significantly improved after 2-µm and 1.9-µm ThuVEP (p<0.001). The median catheterization time and hospitalization times were 2 and 4 days in both groups. Perioperative complications occurred in 89 patients (30.1%): Clavien 1 (12.2%), Clavien 2 (9.1%), Clavien 3a (0.7%), Clavien 3b (7.1%), and Clavien 4a (1%). Regarding the occurrence of complications, there were no differences between the two thulium devices. CONCLUSION: ThuVEP represents a safe and effective treatment for prostates larger than 80 ml. Both thulium laser devices give satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown that thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) is a size-independent minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement. All ThuVEP series have been performed with a 2-µm thulium laser device so far. The aim of this study was to evaluate the complications and early postoperative results of two thulium-devices with different wavelengths for ThuVEP in prostates larger than 80 ml. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective bi-centric matched-paired analysis with 296 patients was performed. Based on prostate size, 148 were matched at each centre and laser device, respectively. A 2-µm (RevoLix, LISA Laser products, Katlenburg, Germany n=148) and a 1.9-µm (vela XL, starmedtec, Starnberg, Germany, n=148) thulium laser with a power output of 90 and 80 W was used. Patients' data were assessed and compared. RESULTS: The median prostate volume (interquartile) was 100 ml (range 86.25-120 ml). At discharge, Qmax (preoperative 7.9 and 9 ml/s vs. postoperative 19.35 and 16.2 ml/s) and postvoiding-residual urine (preoperative 130 and 45 ml vs. postoperative 20 and 25 ml) were significantly improved after 2-µm and 1.9-µm ThuVEP (p<0.001). The median catheterization time and hospitalization times were 2 and 4 days in both groups. Perioperative complications occurred in 89 patients (30.1%): Clavien 1 (12.2%), Clavien 2 (9.1%), Clavien 3a (0.7%), Clavien 3b (7.1%), and Clavien 4a (1%). Regarding the occurrence of complications, there were no differences between the two thulium devices. CONCLUSION:ThuVEP represents a safe and effective treatment for prostates larger than 80 ml. Both thulium laser devices give satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.
Authors: Thomas R W Herrmann; Evangelos N Liatsikos; Udo Nagele; Olivier Traxer; Axel S Merseburger Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Richard Naspro; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Salonia; Vincenzo Scattoni; Giorgio Guazzoni; Renzo Colombo; Andrea Cestari; Alberto Briganti; Bruno Mazzoccoli; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: William W Tinmouth; Enmar Habib; Samuel C Kim; Ramsay L Kuo; Ryan F Paterson; Colin L Terry; Mostafa Elhilali; James E Lingeman Journal: J Endourol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Hemendra N Shah; Hiren S Sodha; Shabbir J Kharodawala; Amit A Khandkar; Sunil S Hegde; Manish B Bansal Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-01-24 Impact factor: 5.588