Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Chin Med J (Engl). 2015 Apr 5;128(7):884-9. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.154282.

Efficacy and safety of 120-W thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet vapoenucleation of prostates compared with holmium laser enucleation of prostates for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Author information

1
Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

This study compared the efficacy and safety between 120-W thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) vapoenucleation of prostates (ThuVEP) and holmium laser enucleation of prostates (HoLEP) for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS:

A retrospective analysis of 88 consecutive patients with symptomatic BPH was carried out, who underwent either 120-W ThuVEP or HoLEP nonrandomly. Patient demographics and peri-operative and 12-month follow-up data were analyzed with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) score, maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), and rates of peri-operative and late complications.

RESULTS:

The patients in each group showed no significant difference in preoperative parameters. Compared with the HoLEP group, patients in the 120-W ThuVEP group required significantly shorter time for laser enucleation (58.3 ± 12.8 min vs. 70.5 ± 22.3 min, P = 0.003), and resulted in a significant superiority in laser efficiency (resected prostate weight/laser enucleation time) for 120-W Tm:YAG laser compared to holmium:YAG laser (0.69 ± 0.18 vs. 0.61 ± 0.19, P = 0.048). During 1, 6, and 12 months of follow-ups, the procedures did not demonstrate a significant difference in IPSS, QoL score, Qmax, or PVR (P > 0.05). Mean peri-operative decrease of hemoglobin in the HoLEP group was similar to the ThuVEP group (17.1 ± 12.0 g/L vs. 15.2 ± 10.1 g/L, P = 0.415). Early and late incidences of complications were low and did not differ significantly between the two groups of 120-W ThuVEP and HoLEP patients (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

120-W ThuVEP and HoLEP are potent, safe and efficient modalities of minimally invasive surgeries for patients with LUTS due to BPH. Compared with HoLEP, 120-W ThuVEP offers advantages of reduction of laser enucleation time and improvement of laser efficiency.

PMID:
25836607
PMCID:
PMC4834003
DOI:
10.4103/0366-6999.154282
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center