Junjie Zhang1, Zhenyu Ou1, Xiaobo Zhang1, Wei He1, Ruizhe Wang1, Miao Mo1, Lingxiao Chen1, Ran Xu2, Shusuan Jiang3, Xiaoyan Peng4, Lin Qi1, Long Wang5,6. 1. Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. 2. Department of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China. 3. Department of Urology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medical, Central South University, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, China. 4. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. 5. Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. wanglong@csu.edu.cn. 6. National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. wanglong@csu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative and functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) for the treatment of large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (> 80 ml). METHODS: A total of 116 consecutive patients with BPH were randomized to be treated surgically with either HoLEP (n = 58) or ThuLEP (n = 58), following the classical three-lobe enucleation technique. Follow-up was assessed at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after surgery. RESULTS: At 18 months, the lower urinary tract symptom index was improved significantly in both groups compared with the baseline values. The operative time (78.4 ± 8.0 vs. 71.4 ± 6.4 min) and enucleation time (61.2 ± 5.4 vs. 56.4 ± 8.4 min) were significantly shorter for ThuLEP compared to HoLEP (both p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding morcellation time, resected weight, hemoglobin decrease, catheter time and hospital stay (p > 0.05). The HoLEP and ThuLEP groups had equivalent International Prostate Symptom Scores (3 [3-3] vs. 3 [3-3], p = 0.776), quality of life (1 [1-2] vs. 2 [1-2], p = 0.809), Qmax (25.3 ± 4.8 ml/s vs. 24.7 ± 4.4 ml/s, p = 0.470), postvoid residual urine (PVR) (6.1 [2.6-20.8] vs. 7.7 [3.1-22.8] ml, p = 0.449) and PSA (0.84 ± 0.32 vs. 0.90 ± 0.34 ml, p = 0.309) at 18 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Both HoLEP and ThuLEP relieve lower urinary tract symptoms in a comparable way with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in operation time and enucleation time, although the differences were clinically negligible.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative and functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) for the treatment of large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (> 80 ml). METHODS: A total of 116 consecutive patients with BPH were randomized to be treated surgically with either HoLEP (n = 58) or ThuLEP (n = 58), following the classical three-lobe enucleation technique. Follow-up was assessed at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after surgery. RESULTS: At 18 months, the lower urinary tract symptom index was improved significantly in both groups compared with the baseline values. The operative time (78.4 ± 8.0 vs. 71.4 ± 6.4 min) and enucleation time (61.2 ± 5.4 vs. 56.4 ± 8.4 min) were significantly shorter for ThuLEP compared to HoLEP (both p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding morcellation time, resected weight, hemoglobin decrease, catheter time and hospital stay (p > 0.05). The HoLEP and ThuLEP groups had equivalent International Prostate Symptom Scores (3 [3-3] vs. 3 [3-3], p = 0.776), quality of life (1 [1-2] vs. 2 [1-2], p = 0.809), Qmax (25.3 ± 4.8 ml/s vs. 24.7 ± 4.4 ml/s, p = 0.470), postvoid residual urine (PVR) (6.1 [2.6-20.8] vs. 7.7 [3.1-22.8] ml, p = 0.449) and PSA (0.84 ± 0.32 vs. 0.90 ± 0.34 ml, p = 0.309) at 18 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Both HoLEP and ThuLEP relieve lower urinary tract symptoms in a comparable way with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in operation time and enucleation time, although the differences were clinically negligible.
Authors: Stavros Gravas; Alexander Bachmann; Oliver Reich; Claus G Roehrborn; Peter J Gilling; Jean De La Rosette Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 5.588
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: 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: Jean-Nicolas Cornu; Sascha Ahyai; Alexander Bachmann; Jean de la Rosette; Peter Gilling; Christian Gratzke; Kevin McVary; Giacomo Novara; Henry Woo; Stephan Madersbacher Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Giorgio Bozzini; Lorenzo Berti; Tahsin Batuhan Aydoğan; Matteo Maltagliati; Jean Baptiste Roche; Pierluigi Bove; Umberto Besana; Alberto Calori; Antonio Luigi Pastore; Alexander Müller; Salvatore Micali; Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Bernardo Rocco; Carlo Buizza Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 4.226