Objectives: To compare thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy (LSP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and methods: Data of patients who underwent surgery for "large" BPH (>80mL) at three Institutions were collected and analyzed. Two institutions performed ThuLEP only; the third institution performed LSP only. Preoperative (indwelling catheter status, prostate volume (PVol), hemoglobin (Hb), Qmax, post-voiding residual volume (PVR), IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5) and perioperative data (operative time, enucleated adenoma, catheterization time, length of stay, Hb-drop, complications) were compared. Functional (Qmax, PVR, %ΔQmax) and patient-reported outcomes (IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5, %ΔIPSS, %ΔQoL) were compared at last follow-up. Results: 80 and 115 patients underwent LSP and ThuLEP, respectively. At baseline, median PVol was 130 versus 120mL, p <0.001; Qmax 9.6 vs. 7.1mL/s, p=0.005; IPSS 21 versus 25, p <0.001. Groups were comparable in terms of intraoperative complications (1 during LSP vs. 3 during ThuLEP) and transfusions (1 per group). Differences in terms of operative time (156 vs. 92 minutes, p <0.001), Hb-drop (-2.5 vs. -0.9g/dL, p <0.001), catheterization time (5 vs. 2 days, p <0.001) and postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 0, p <0.001) favored ThuLEP. At median follow-up of 40 months after LSP versus 30 after ThuLEP (p <0.001), Qmax improved by 226% vs. 205% (p=0.5), IPSS decreased by 88% versus 85% (p=0.9), QoL decreased by 80% with IIEF-5 remaining almost unmodified for both the approaches. Conclusions: Our analysis showed that LSP and ThuLEP are comparable in relieving from BPO and improving the patient-reported outcomes. Invasiveness of LSP is more significant.

Thulium laser enucleation of prostate versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy in the treatment of large benign prostatic hyperplasia: head-to-head comparison

Bertolo R;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Objectives: To compare thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy (LSP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and methods: Data of patients who underwent surgery for "large" BPH (>80mL) at three Institutions were collected and analyzed. Two institutions performed ThuLEP only; the third institution performed LSP only. Preoperative (indwelling catheter status, prostate volume (PVol), hemoglobin (Hb), Qmax, post-voiding residual volume (PVR), IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5) and perioperative data (operative time, enucleated adenoma, catheterization time, length of stay, Hb-drop, complications) were compared. Functional (Qmax, PVR, %ΔQmax) and patient-reported outcomes (IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5, %ΔIPSS, %ΔQoL) were compared at last follow-up. Results: 80 and 115 patients underwent LSP and ThuLEP, respectively. At baseline, median PVol was 130 versus 120mL, p <0.001; Qmax 9.6 vs. 7.1mL/s, p=0.005; IPSS 21 versus 25, p <0.001. Groups were comparable in terms of intraoperative complications (1 during LSP vs. 3 during ThuLEP) and transfusions (1 per group). Differences in terms of operative time (156 vs. 92 minutes, p <0.001), Hb-drop (-2.5 vs. -0.9g/dL, p <0.001), catheterization time (5 vs. 2 days, p <0.001) and postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 0, p <0.001) favored ThuLEP. At median follow-up of 40 months after LSP versus 30 after ThuLEP (p <0.001), Qmax improved by 226% vs. 205% (p=0.5), IPSS decreased by 88% versus 85% (p=0.9), QoL decreased by 80% with IIEF-5 remaining almost unmodified for both the approaches. Conclusions: Our analysis showed that LSP and ThuLEP are comparable in relieving from BPO and improving the patient-reported outcomes. Invasiveness of LSP is more significant.
2022
Prostatectomy, Prostatic Hyperplasia, Thulium
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1112326
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 7
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 8
social impact