Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with Virtual Basket mode: faster and better control on bleeding.
Benign prostatic hyperplasia
Holmium laser
Laser therapy
Prostate
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Feb 2021
23 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
11
08
2020
accepted:
12
02
2021
revised:
09
02
2021
entrez:
24
2
2021
pubmed:
25
2
2021
medline:
23
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare clinical intra and early postoperative outcomes between conventional Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using the Virtual Basket tool (VB-HoLEP) to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This prospective randomized study enrolled consecutive patients with BPH, who were assigned to undergo either HoLEP (n = 100), or VB-HoLEP (n = 100). All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively, with particular attention to catheterization time, operative time, blood loss, irrigation volume and hospital stay. We also evaluated the patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery and assessed maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Quality of Life score (QOLS). No significant differences in preoperative parameters between patients in each study arm were found. Compared to HoLEP, VB-HoLEP resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (2.54 vs. 1.12 g/dl, P = 0.03) and reduced operative time (57.33 ± 29.71 vs. 42.99 ± 18.51 min, P = 0.04). HoLEP and VB-HoLEP detrmined similar catheterization time (2.2 vs. 1.9 days, P = 0.45), irrigation volume (33.3 vs. 31.7 l, P = 0.69), and hospital stay (2.8 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.21). During the 6-month follow-up no significant differences in IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and QOLS were demonstrated. HoLEP and VB-HoLEP are both efficient and safe procedures for relieving lower urinary tract symptoms. VB-HoLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in blood loss and operative time. However, procedures did not differ significantly in catheterization time, hospital stay, and irrigation volume. No significant differences were demonstrated in QOLS, IPSS, Qmax and PVR throughout the 6-month follow-up. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72879639; date of registration: June 25th, 2015. Retrospectively registred.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To compare clinical intra and early postoperative outcomes between conventional Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using the Virtual Basket tool (VB-HoLEP) to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
METHODS
METHODS
This prospective randomized study enrolled consecutive patients with BPH, who were assigned to undergo either HoLEP (n = 100), or VB-HoLEP (n = 100). All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively, with particular attention to catheterization time, operative time, blood loss, irrigation volume and hospital stay. We also evaluated the patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery and assessed maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Quality of Life score (QOLS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
No significant differences in preoperative parameters between patients in each study arm were found. Compared to HoLEP, VB-HoLEP resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (2.54 vs. 1.12 g/dl, P = 0.03) and reduced operative time (57.33 ± 29.71 vs. 42.99 ± 18.51 min, P = 0.04). HoLEP and VB-HoLEP detrmined similar catheterization time (2.2 vs. 1.9 days, P = 0.45), irrigation volume (33.3 vs. 31.7 l, P = 0.69), and hospital stay (2.8 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.21). During the 6-month follow-up no significant differences in IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and QOLS were demonstrated.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
HoLEP and VB-HoLEP are both efficient and safe procedures for relieving lower urinary tract symptoms. VB-HoLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in blood loss and operative time. However, procedures did not differ significantly in catheterization time, hospital stay, and irrigation volume. No significant differences were demonstrated in QOLS, IPSS, Qmax and PVR throughout the 6-month follow-up.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72879639; date of registration: June 25th, 2015. Retrospectively registred.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33622326
doi: 10.1186/s12894-021-00797-5
pii: 10.1186/s12894-021-00797-5
pmc: PMC7903737
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN72879639']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
28Références
Urology. 2018 Nov;121:58-65
pubmed: 30031005
Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2017 Oct 16;8(4):
pubmed: 28914602
J Urol. 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1926-9
pubmed: 15540757
J Endourol. 1995 Apr;9(2):151-3
pubmed: 7633476
BJU Int. 2007 Jul;100(1):94-101
pubmed: 17419697
Curr Opin Urol. 2020 Mar;30(2):144-148
pubmed: 31895890
J Urol. 2006 Apr;175(4):1428-32
pubmed: 16516015
Urology. 2018 Oct;120:9-22
pubmed: 30403609
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020 Feb;72(1):22-29
pubmed: 31619035
World J Urol. 2018 Feb;36(2):271-276
pubmed: 29138929
J Urol. 2004 May;171(5):1773-81
pubmed: 15076275
J Urol. 2011 Nov;186(5):1977-81
pubmed: 21944135
Eur Urol. 1998;33(1):69-72
pubmed: 9471043
Actas Urol Esp. 2017 Jun;41(5):309-315
pubmed: 28062085
Urologiia. 2018 Mar;(1):42-47
pubmed: 29634133
World J Urol. 2018 Mar;36(3):441-447
pubmed: 29275506
World J Urol. 2010 Feb;28(1):45-51
pubmed: 20063164
World J Urol. 2020 Dec;38(12):3227-3233
pubmed: 32124018
Urology. 2020 Feb;136:196-201
pubmed: 31790785
Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1066-1096
pubmed: 24972732