European urology focus · 2023
Comparison Between Thulium Fiber Laser and High-power Holmium Laser for Anatomic Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis from the REAP Registry.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gauhar Vineet, Nedbal Carlotta, Castellani Daniele, Fong Khi Yung, Sofer Mario, Socarrás Moisés Rodríguez, Tursunkulov Azimdjon N, Ying Lie Kwok, Elterman Dean, Mahajan Abhay, Petov Vladislav, Ivanovich Sorokin Nikolai, Bhatia Tanuj Paul, Enikeev Dmitry, Gadzhiev Nariman, Chiruvella Mallikarjuna, Teoh Jeremy Yuen-Chun, Galosi Andrea Benedetto, Sancha Fernando Gómez, Somani Bhaskar Kumar, Herrmann Thomas R W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Different lasers have been developed for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, with no definitively superior technique identified to date.
OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical and functional enucleation outcomes in real-world multicentre practice using high-power holmium laser (HP-HoLEP) and thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) for different prostate sizes.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 4216 patients who underwent HP-HoLEP or ThuFLEP at eight centers in seven countries between 2020 and 2022. Exclusion criteria were previous urethral or prostatic surgery, radiotherapy, or concomitant surgery.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: To adjust for the bias arising from different characteristics at baseline, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to identify 563 matched patients in each cohort. Outcomes included the incidence of postoperative incontinence, early complications (30-d), and delayed complications, and results for the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual volume (PVR).
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After PSM, 563 patients in each arm were included. Total operative time was similar between the arms, but enucleation and morcellation times were significantly longer for ThuFLEP. The rate of postoperative acute urinary retention was higher in the ThuFLEP arm (3.6% vs 0.9%; p = 0.005), but the 30-d readmission rate was higher in the HP-HoLEP arm (22% vs 8%; p = 0.016). There was no difference in postoperative incontinence rates (HP-HoLEP:19.7%, ThuFLEP:16.0%; p = 0.120). Rates of other early and delayed complications were low and comparable between the arms. The ThuFLEP group had higher Qmax (p < 0.001) and lower PVR (p < 0.001) than the HP-HoLEP group at 1-yr follow-up. The study is limited by its retrospective nature.
CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study shows that early and delayed outcomes of enucleation with ThuFLEP are comparable to those with HP-HoLEP, with similar improvements in micturition parameters and IPSS.
PATIENT SUMMARY: As lasers become readily available for the treatment of enlarged prostates causing urinary bother, urologists should focus on performing good anatomic removal of prostate tissue, with the choice of laser not as important for good outcomes. Patients should be counseled about long-term complications, even when the procedure is being performed by an experienced surgeon.
OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical and functional enucleation outcomes in real-world multicentre practice using high-power holmium laser (HP-HoLEP) and thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) for different prostate sizes.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 4216 patients who underwent HP-HoLEP or ThuFLEP at eight centers in seven countries between 2020 and 2022. Exclusion criteria were previous urethral or prostatic surgery, radiotherapy, or concomitant surgery.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: To adjust for the bias arising from different characteristics at baseline, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to identify 563 matched patients in each cohort. Outcomes included the incidence of postoperative incontinence, early complications (30-d), and delayed complications, and results for the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual volume (PVR).
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After PSM, 563 patients in each arm were included. Total operative time was similar between the arms, but enucleation and morcellation times were significantly longer for ThuFLEP. The rate of postoperative acute urinary retention was higher in the ThuFLEP arm (3.6% vs 0.9%; p = 0.005), but the 30-d readmission rate was higher in the HP-HoLEP arm (22% vs 8%; p = 0.016). There was no difference in postoperative incontinence rates (HP-HoLEP:19.7%, ThuFLEP:16.0%; p = 0.120). Rates of other early and delayed complications were low and comparable between the arms. The ThuFLEP group had higher Qmax (p < 0.001) and lower PVR (p < 0.001) than the HP-HoLEP group at 1-yr follow-up. The study is limited by its retrospective nature.
CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study shows that early and delayed outcomes of enucleation with ThuFLEP are comparable to those with HP-HoLEP, with similar improvements in micturition parameters and IPSS.
PATIENT SUMMARY: As lasers become readily available for the treatment of enlarged prostates causing urinary bother, urologists should focus on performing good anatomic removal of prostate tissue, with the choice of laser not as important for good outcomes. Patients should be counseled about long-term complications, even when the procedure is being performed by an experienced surgeon.