Luca Cindolo1, Cosimo De Nunzio2, Francesco Greco3, Paolo Destefanis4, Franco Bergamaschi5, Giovanni Ferrari6, Giuseppe Fasolis7, Fabiano Palmieri8, Claudio Divan9, Rino Oriti10, Lorenzo Ruggera11, Andrea Tubaro2, Claudio Dadone12, Gaetano De Rienzo13, Antonio Frattini14, Vincenzo Mirone3, Luigi Schips15. 1. Department of Urology, ASL Abruzzo2, Via S. Camillo de Lellis 1, 66054, Vasto, Chieti, Italy. lucacindolo@virgilio.it. 2. Department of Urology, "Sant'Andrea" Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, "Federico II" University, Naples, Italy. 4. Department of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino-Sede Molinette, Turin, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, "Hesperia" Hospital, Modena, Italy. 7. Department of Urology, "S. Lazzaro" Hospital, Alba, Italy. 8. Department of Urology, Santa Maria delle Croci Hospital, Ravenna, Italy. 9. Department of Urology, Rovereto Hospital, Rovereto, Italy. 10. Department of Urology, Ulivella e Glicini Clinic, Florence, Italy. 11. Department of Urology, Clinica urologica azienda ospedaliera-University of Padova, Padua, Italy. 12. Department of Urology, "Santa Croce e Carle" Hospital, Cuneo, Italy. 13. Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology and Andrology Unit II, University of Bari, Bari, Italy. 14. Department of Urology, "Ercole Franchini" Hospital, Montecchio Emilia, Italy. 15. Department of Urology, ASL Abruzzo2, Via S. Camillo de Lellis 1, 66054, Vasto, Chieti, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and complications rates after 180-W GreenLight laser (180-W GL laser) standard and anatomical photoselective vaporization (sPVP and aPVP). METHODS: Within a multi-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent sPVP or aPVP to relief BPH symptoms. IPSS, Q max, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were measured at baseline and during the follow-up. PGI-I score as well as early and late complications were recorded at follow-up visits. Log-binomial and multivariable proportional odds regression models were fitted to estimate the effect of aPVP vs. sPVP on PGI-I as well as on early and late complication rates, before and after adjustment for propensity score. RESULTS: 813 patients were included. Of those, the 50.4% underwent aPVP. Patients who underwent aPVP had larger prostate (64 vs. 55 mL, p < 0.001) and higher baseline PSA levels (3.1 vs. 2.5 ng/mL, p < 0.001). PGI-I score was signaled as very improved, improved, slightly improved, unchanged, or worsened in 55.5, 32.8, 8.3, 2.3, and 1.2% of the cases, respectively, with no differences according the technique used (p = 0.420). Acute urinary retention occurred in 9.2 vs. 8.9% of patients after aPVP vs. sPVP (p = 0.872). All models failed to find differences in: patients' satisfaction (OR 1.19, p = 0.256), early complications (RR 0.93, p = 0.387), early urge/incontinence symptoms (RR 0.97, p = 0.814), and late complications rates (RR 0.70, p = 0.053), after aPVP vs. sPVP. CONCLUSION: Our results showed similar functional results and complication rates after aPVP and sPVP. However, aPVP was used in larger prostates. Both techniques guarantee high patient's satisfaction.
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and complications rates after 180-W GreenLight laser (180-W GL laser) standard and anatomical photoselective vaporization (sPVP and aPVP). METHODS: Within a multi-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent sPVP or aPVP to relief BPH symptoms. IPSS, Q max, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were measured at baseline and during the follow-up. PGI-I score as well as early and late complications were recorded at follow-up visits. Log-binomial and multivariable proportional odds regression models were fitted to estimate the effect of aPVP vs. sPVP on PGI-I as well as on early and late complication rates, before and after adjustment for propensity score. RESULTS: 813 patients were included. Of those, the 50.4% underwent aPVP. Patients who underwent aPVP had larger prostate (64 vs. 55 mL, p < 0.001) and higher baseline PSA levels (3.1 vs. 2.5 ng/mL, p < 0.001). PGI-I score was signaled as very improved, improved, slightly improved, unchanged, or worsened in 55.5, 32.8, 8.3, 2.3, and 1.2% of the cases, respectively, with no differences according the technique used (p = 0.420). Acute urinary retention occurred in 9.2 vs. 8.9% of patients after aPVP vs. sPVP (p = 0.872). All models failed to find differences in: patients' satisfaction (OR 1.19, p = 0.256), early complications (RR 0.93, p = 0.387), early urge/incontinence symptoms (RR 0.97, p = 0.814), and late complications rates (RR 0.70, p = 0.053), after aPVP vs. sPVP. CONCLUSION: Our results showed similar functional results and complication rates after aPVP and sPVP. However, aPVP was used in larger prostates. Both techniques guarantee high patient's satisfaction.
Authors: Luca Cindolo; Lorenzo Ruggera; Paolo Destefanis; Claudio Dadone; Giovanni Ferrari Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-01-02 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Benoit Peyronnet; Vincent Misrai; Tev Aho; Henry Woo; Thomas Herrmann; Fernando Gomez-Sancha Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 4.226
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: 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