Benoit Peyronnet1, Grégoire Robert2, Vincent Comat2, Morgan Rouprêt3, Fernando Gomez-Sancha4, Jean-Nicolas Cornu5, Vincent Misrai6. 1. Department of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France. 2. Department of Urology, Bordeaux Hospital, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 3. AP-HP, Hospital Pitié-Salpétrière, Service d'Urologie, 75013, Paris, France. 4. CUA - Clínica CEMTRO, Madrid, Spain. 5. Department of Urology, Rouen University Hospital, 1 rue de Germont, 76000, Rouen, France. 6. Department of Urology, Clinique Pasteur, 45 Avenue de Lombez, 31300, Toulouse, France. vmisrai@clinique-pasteur.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the learning curves, perioperative and early functional outcomes after HoLEP and GreenLEP. METHODS: Data from the first 100 consecutive cases treated by GreenLEP and HoLEP by two surgeons were prospectively collected from dedicated databases and analysed retrospectively. En-bloc GreenLEP and two-lobar HoLEP enucleations were conducted using the GreenLight HPS™ 2090 laser and Lumenis™ holmium laser. Patients' characteristics, perioperative outcomes and functional outcomes after 1, 3 and 6 months were compared between groups. RESULTS: Total energy delivered and operative times were significantly shorter for GreenLEP (58 vs. 110 kJ, p < 0.0001; 60 vs. 90 min, p < 0.0001). Operative time reached a plateau after 30 procedures in each group. Length of catheterization and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the HoLEP group (2 vs. 1 day, p < 0.0001; 2 vs. 1 day, p < 0.0001). Postoperative complications were comparable between GreenLEP and HoLEP (19 vs. 25 %; p = 0.13). There was a greater increase of Q max at 3 months and a greater IPSS decrease at 1 month for GreenLEP, whereas decreases in IPSS and IPSS-Q8 at 6 months were greater for HoLEP. Transient stress urinary incontinence was comparable between both groups (6 vs. 9 % at 3 months; p = 0.42). Pentafecta was achieved in four consecutive patients after the 18th and the 40th procedure in the GreenLEP and HoLEP group, respectively. Learning curves ranged from 14 to 30 cases for GreenLEP and 22 to 40 cases for HoLEP. CONCLUSION: Learning curves of GreenLEP and HoLEP provided roughly similar peri-operative and short-term functional outcomes.
PURPOSE: To compare the learning curves, perioperative and early functional outcomes after HoLEP and GreenLEP. METHODS: Data from the first 100 consecutive cases treated by GreenLEP and HoLEP by two surgeons were prospectively collected from dedicated databases and analysed retrospectively. En-bloc GreenLEP and two-lobar HoLEP enucleations were conducted using the GreenLight HPS™ 2090 laser and Lumenis™ holmium laser. Patients' characteristics, perioperative outcomes and functional outcomes after 1, 3 and 6 months were compared between groups. RESULTS: Total energy delivered and operative times were significantly shorter for GreenLEP (58 vs. 110 kJ, p < 0.0001; 60 vs. 90 min, p < 0.0001). Operative time reached a plateau after 30 procedures in each group. Length of catheterization and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the HoLEP group (2 vs. 1 day, p < 0.0001; 2 vs. 1 day, p < 0.0001). Postoperative complications were comparable between GreenLEP and HoLEP (19 vs. 25 %; p = 0.13). There was a greater increase of Q max at 3 months and a greater IPSS decrease at 1 month for GreenLEP, whereas decreases in IPSS and IPSS-Q8 at 6 months were greater for HoLEP. Transient stress urinary incontinence was comparable between both groups (6 vs. 9 % at 3 months; p = 0.42). Pentafecta was achieved in four consecutive patients after the 18th and the 40th procedure in the GreenLEP and HoLEP group, respectively. Learning curves ranged from 14 to 30 cases for GreenLEP and 22 to 40 cases for HoLEP. CONCLUSION: Learning curves of GreenLEP and HoLEP provided roughly similar peri-operative and short-term functional outcomes.
Authors: Vincent Misraï; Matthieu Faron; Julien Guillotreau; Eric Bruguière; Benoit Bordier; Shahrokh F Shariat; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-09-26 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Min Chul Cho; Ji Hyun Park; Min Su Jeong; Jun-Seok Yi; Ja Hyeon Ku; Seung-June Oh; Soo Woong Kim; Jae-Seung Paick Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Pierre-Alain Hueber; Tal Ben-Zvi; Daniel Liberman; Naeem Bhojani; Gagan Gautam; Tom Deklaj; Mark Katz; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Vincent Misraï; Marie Pasquie; Benoit Bordier; Benjamin Elman; Jean Michel Lhez; Julien Guillotreau; Kevin Zorn Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Dmitry Enikeev; Andrey Morozov; Mark Taratkin; Vincent Misrai; Enrique Rijo; Alexei Podoinitsin; Svetlana Gabdullina; Thomas R W Herrmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Malek Meskawi; Pierre-Alain Hueber; Roger Valdivieso; Franck Bruyere; Vincent Misrai; Georges Fournier; Ravi Munver; Ganesh Sivarajan; Matthew Rutman; Alexis E Te; Bilal Chughtai; Dean Elterman; Tristan Martel; Mounsif Azizi; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Kevin C Zorn Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Bernd Rosenhammer; Maximilian Schönhärl; Roman Mayr; Marco J Schnabel; Maximilian Burger; Christian Eichelberg Journal: Urol Int Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 2.089