Русский
A comparison between enucleation of the prostate using holmium and thulium laser in volume over 80 cc: retrospective clinical study with 12-months follow-up
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/urology.2019.3.80-83
S.V. Popov, I.N. Orlov, A.G. Martov, S.M. Malevich, I.V. Sushina, E.A. Grin, V.M. Obidnyak, D.V. Dovganskiy, T.M. Topuzov
1 SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka», Saint Petersburg, Russia; 2 Department of Hospital Surgery of Medical Faculty of SPbGU, Saint Petersburg, Russia; 3 Department of Urology of S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Saint Petersburg, Russia; 4 City clinical hospital №57, Moscow, Russia
Aim: The aim of our study was to evaluate efficiency of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of 112 patients with BPH who underwent ThuLEP (n = 60) or holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) (n = 52) at our institution from January 2017 to June 2017 was carried out. The perioperative data and complication rate were assessed. Severity of lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) was evaluated after 1, 6 and 12 months using International Prostate Symptom Score [I-PSS], quality-of-life [QoL] score and maximum flow rate [Qmax]. To shorten learning curve, we modified the technique and simplified the intervention. To reduce noise during surgery, we performed ThuLEP using Vela XL.
Results: There were significant differences in pre- and perioperative parameters, including operative time (113.15 ± 12.14 vs. 118.08 ± 15.76 min, p = 0.46), decrease in serum sodium concentration (3.49 ± 0.83 vs. 3.48 ± 0.84 mmol/L, P = 0.97), hemoglobin drop (1.37 ± 0.18 vs. 1.43 ± 0.38 g/dL, p = 0.65), catheterization time (2.15 ± 0.38 vs. 2.27 ± 0.39 days, p = 0.52) and hospital stay (6.95 ± 0.82 vs 7.56 ± 1.36 days, p = 0.25) between the two groups (ThuLEP and HoLEP). Compared with the HoLEP group, intraoperative noise was lower in ThuLEP group (47.22 ± 10.31 vs. 59.45 ± 9.65 db, p < 0.05). At 1-, 6- and 12 months follow-up, the LUTS severity (I-PSS, QoL score and Qmax) were significantly improved in both groups in comparison with the baseline values. Furthermore, there was no difference in LUTS severity between two groups
(p > 0.05).
Conclusion: ThuLEP is comparable to the holmium laser in terms of efficiency, safety and indications and represent minimally invasive treatment option for patients with LUTS secondary to BPH.
Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of 112 patients with BPH who underwent ThuLEP (n = 60) or holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) (n = 52) at our institution from January 2017 to June 2017 was carried out. The perioperative data and complication rate were assessed. Severity of lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) was evaluated after 1, 6 and 12 months using International Prostate Symptom Score [I-PSS], quality-of-life [QoL] score and maximum flow rate [Qmax]. To shorten learning curve, we modified the technique and simplified the intervention. To reduce noise during surgery, we performed ThuLEP using Vela XL.
Results: There were significant differences in pre- and perioperative parameters, including operative time (113.15 ± 12.14 vs. 118.08 ± 15.76 min, p = 0.46), decrease in serum sodium concentration (3.49 ± 0.83 vs. 3.48 ± 0.84 mmol/L, P = 0.97), hemoglobin drop (1.37 ± 0.18 vs. 1.43 ± 0.38 g/dL, p = 0.65), catheterization time (2.15 ± 0.38 vs. 2.27 ± 0.39 days, p = 0.52) and hospital stay (6.95 ± 0.82 vs 7.56 ± 1.36 days, p = 0.25) between the two groups (ThuLEP and HoLEP). Compared with the HoLEP group, intraoperative noise was lower in ThuLEP group (47.22 ± 10.31 vs. 59.45 ± 9.65 db, p < 0.05). At 1-, 6- and 12 months follow-up, the LUTS severity (I-PSS, QoL score and Qmax) were significantly improved in both groups in comparison with the baseline values. Furthermore, there was no difference in LUTS severity between two groups
(p > 0.05).
Conclusion: ThuLEP is comparable to the holmium laser in terms of efficiency, safety and indications and represent minimally invasive treatment option for patients with LUTS secondary to BPH.
About the Autors
Corresponding author: S.M. Malevich – urologist at the Department of Urology. SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka», Saint Petersburg, Russia; e-mail: malevichsm@gmail.com
Similar Articles
