Christopher Netsch1, B Becker2, C Tiburtius2, C Moritz2, A Venneri Becci2, T R W Herrmann3, A J Gross2. 1. Department of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22291, Hamburg, Germany. c.netsch@asklepios.com. 2. Department of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Rübenkamp 220, 22291, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, MHH Medical School of Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the perioperative outcomes of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for patients with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS:Forty-eight and 46 patients were prospectively randomized to ThuVEP and HoLEP. All patients were assessed preoperatively and 4-week postoperatively. The complications were noted and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system. Patient data were expressed as median (interquartile range) or numbers (%). RESULTS:Median age at surgery was 73 (67-76) years andmedian prostate volume was 80 (46.75-100) cc and not different between the groups (p = 0.207). The median operative time was 60 (41-79) minutes without significant differences between both groups (p = 0.275). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding catheterization time [2 (2-2) days, p = 0.966] and postoperative stay [2 (2-3) days, p = 0.80]). Clavien 1 (13.8%), Clavien 2 (3.2%), Clavien 3a (2.1%), and Clavien 3b (4.3%) complications occurred without significant differences between the groups. However, the occurrence of acute postoperative urinary retention was higher after HoLEP compared to ThuVEP (15.2 vs. 2.1%, p ≤ 0.022). At 1-month follow-up, peak urinary flow rates (10.7 vs. 22 ml/s), post-void residual volumes (100 vs. 20 ml), International Prostate Symptom Score (20 vs. 10) and Quality of Life (4 vs. 3) had improved significantly (p ≤ 0.005) without significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:ThuVEP and HoLEP are safe and effective procedures for the treatment of symptomatic BPO. Both procedures give equivalent and satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the perioperative outcomes of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for patients with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS: Forty-eight and 46 patients were prospectively randomized to ThuVEP and HoLEP. All patients were assessed preoperatively and 4-week postoperatively. The complications were noted and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system. Patient data were expressed as median (interquartile range) or numbers (%). RESULTS: Median age at surgery was 73 (67-76) years and median prostate volume was 80 (46.75-100) cc and not different between the groups (p = 0.207). The median operative time was 60 (41-79) minutes without significant differences between both groups (p = 0.275). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding catheterization time [2 (2-2) days, p = 0.966] and postoperative stay [2 (2-3) days, p = 0.80]). Clavien 1 (13.8%), Clavien 2 (3.2%), Clavien 3a (2.1%), and Clavien 3b (4.3%) complications occurred without significant differences between the groups. However, the occurrence of acute postoperative urinary retention was higher after HoLEP compared to ThuVEP (15.2 vs. 2.1%, p ≤ 0.022). At 1-month follow-up, peak urinary flow rates (10.7 vs. 22 ml/s), post-void residual volumes (100 vs. 20 ml), International Prostate Symptom Score (20 vs. 10) and Quality of Life (4 vs. 3) had improved significantly (p ≤ 0.005) without significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:ThuVEP and HoLEP are safe and effective procedures for the treatment of symptomatic BPO. Both procedures give equivalent and satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.
Authors: Ahmed M Elshal; Mohamed A Elkoushy; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Ahmed M Shoma; Adel Nabeeh; Serge Carrier; Mostafa M Elhilali Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sascha A Ahyai; Peter Gilling; Steven A Kaplan; Rainer M Kuntz; Stephan Madersbacher; Francesco Montorsi; Mark J Speakman; Christian G Stief Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marawan M El Tayeb; Joseph M Jacob; Naeem Bhojani; Elaine Bammerlin; James E Lingeman Journal: J Endourol Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Soum D Lokeshwar; Benjamin T Harper; Eric Webb; Andre Jordan; Thomas A Dykes; Durwood E Neal; Martha K Terris; Zachary Klaassen Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2019-10
Authors: Giovanni Saredi; Giacomo Maria Pirola; Francesca Ambrosini; Simone Barbieri; Lorenzo Berti; Andrea Pacchetti; Domenico Iovino; Giuseppe Ietto; Letizia Libassi; Giulio Carcano Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2019-02-04