Giorgio Bozzini1,2, Lorenzo Berti3,4, Tahsin Batuhan Aydoğan4, Matteo Maltagliati3,4, Jean Baptiste Roche5,6, Pierluigi Bove7, Umberto Besana3, Alberto Calori3, Antonio Luigi Pastore8, Alexander Müller9, Salvatore Micali4,6, Maria Chiara Sighinolfi4, Bernardo Rocco4,6, Carlo Buizza3. 1. Department of Urology, ASST Valle Olona, Ospedale di Busto Arsizio (VA), Busto Arsizio, Italy. gioboz@yahoo.it. 2. ESUT: European Association of Urology (EAU) Section of Uro-Technology, Novara, Italy. gioboz@yahoo.it. 3. Department of Urology, ASST Valle Olona, Ospedale di Busto Arsizio (VA), Busto Arsizio, Italy. 4. Department of Urology, Università Degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia (MO), Modena, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, Clinique Saint Augustin, Bordeaux, France. 6. ESUT: European Association of Urology (EAU) Section of Uro-Technology, Novara, Italy. 7. Department of Urology, Ospedale San Carlo di Nancy, Roma, Italy. 8. Department of Urology, Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, ICOT (LT), Rome, Italy. 9. Department of Urology, Spital Limmattal, Schlieren, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive patients who underwentThuLEP (n = 115), or HoLEP (n = 121) in three different centers. Intra and perioperative parameters were analyzed: operative time, enucleated tissue weight, irrigation volume, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay and complications. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively with the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the quality of life (QoL) score, post-void residual volume (PVR), PSA and maximum flow rate (Qmax). RESULTS: Preoperative variables in each study arm did not show any significant difference. Compared to HoLEP, ThuLEP showed similar operative time (63.69 vs 71.66 min, p = 0.245), enucleated tissue weight (48.84 vs 51.13 g, p = 0.321), catheterization time (1.9 vs 2.0 days, p = 0.450) and hospital stay (2.2 vs 2.8 days, p = 0.216), but resulted in less haemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.77 g/dL, p = 0.005). HoLEP presented a significantly higher number of patients with postoperative acute urinary retention and stress incontinence. No significant differences were found in PSA, Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QoL score during follow-up. CONCLUSION:ThuLEP and HoLEP both relieved lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP detemined reduced blood loss and early postoperative complications. Catheterization time, enucleated tissue, hospital stay, operative time and follow-up parameters did not show any significant difference.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive patients who underwent ThuLEP (n = 115), or HoLEP (n = 121) in three different centers. Intra and perioperative parameters were analyzed: operative time, enucleated tissue weight, irrigation volume, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay and complications. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively with the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the quality of life (QoL) score, post-void residual volume (PVR), PSA and maximum flow rate (Qmax). RESULTS: Preoperative variables in each study arm did not show any significant difference. Compared to HoLEP, ThuLEP showed similar operative time (63.69 vs 71.66 min, p = 0.245), enucleated tissue weight (48.84 vs 51.13 g, p = 0.321), catheterization time (1.9 vs 2.0 days, p = 0.450) and hospital stay (2.2 vs 2.8 days, p = 0.216), but resulted in less haemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.77 g/dL, p = 0.005). HoLEP presented a significantly higher number of patients with postoperative acute urinary retention and stress incontinence. No significant differences were found in PSA, Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QoL score during follow-up. CONCLUSION:ThuLEP and HoLEP both relieved lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP detemined reduced blood loss and early postoperative complications. Catheterization time, enucleated tissue, hospital stay, operative time and follow-up parameters did not show any significant difference.
Authors: Mohammad Hout; Aaron Gurayah; Maria Camila Suarez Arbelaez; Ruben Blachman-Braun; Khushi Shah; Thomas R W Herrmann; Hemendra N Shah Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Giorgio Bozzini; Lorenzo Berti; Matteo Maltagliati; Benedikt Becker; Thomas R W Herrmann; Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Carlo Buizza; Bernardo Rocco Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 4.226