Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int Urol Nephrol. 2018 May;50(5):819-823. doi: 10.1007/s11255-018-1840-y. Epub 2018 Mar 24.

Comparison of Vela and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a retrospective clinical trial with a 12-month follow-up.

Author information

1
Department of Urology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 639 Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai, 200011, People's Republic of China.
2
Department of Urology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 639 Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai, 200011, People's Republic of China. qiqi_chenqi@hotmail.com.
3
Department of Urology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 639 Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai, 200011, People's Republic of China. zhongwang2000@sina.com.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

This study aimed to estimate the validity and applicability of Vela laser enucleation of the prostate (VoLEP) in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS:

A retrospective chart review of 112 patients with BPH who underwent VoLEP (n = 60) or holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) (n = 56) was conducted at our institution from January 2015 to June 2015. The general and perioperative characteristics of the patients were collected. The 12-month follow-up data, including the lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) indexes (International Prostate Symptom Score [I-PSS], quality-of-life [QoL] score and maximum flow rate [Qmax]), as well as rates of perioperative and late complications, were analyzed.

RESULTS:

No significant differences were observed in pre- and perioperative parameters, including operation time (58.05 ± 10.14 vs. 60.14 ± 12.30 min, P = 0.44), serum sodium decrease (3.49 ± 0.83 vs. 3.48 ± 0.84 mmol/L, P = 0.97), hemoglobin decrease (1.28 ± 0.38 vs. 1.24 ± 0.77 g/dL, P = 0.71), catheterization time (3.63 ± 1.10 vs. 3.89 ± 1.11 days, P = 0.21) and hospital stay (4.57 ± 1.25 vs. 4.68 ± 1.18 days, P = 0.63) between the two groups of patients. Compared with the HoLEP group, the noise during operation was lower in VoLEP group (47.22 ± 10.31 vs. 59.45 ± 9.65 db, P < 0.05). During 1, 6 and 12 months of follow-up visits, the LUTS indexes (I-PSS, QoL score and Qmax) were remarkably improved in both groups when comparing with the baseline values. Furthermore, LUTS indexes were comparable in both groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

Similarly as the holmium laser, the Vela laser is a potent, safe, efficient durable and surgical treatment option for minimally invasive surgery in patients with BPH-induced LUTS.

KEYWORDS:

Benign prostate hyperplasia; Enucleation; Holmium laser; Vela laser

PMID:
29574627
DOI:
10.1007/s11255-018-1840-y
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center