We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL
ENGLISH ABSTRACT
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
[Thulium vapoenucleation of prostates larger than 80 ml using a 1.9-µm and a 2-µm thulium laser. Early perioperative results from two centres].
Der Urologe. Ausg. A 2015 October
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown that thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) is a size-independent minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement. All ThuVEP series have been performed with a 2-µm thulium laser device so far. The aim of this study was to evaluate the complications and early postoperative results of two thulium-devices with different wavelengths for ThuVEP in prostates larger than 80 ml.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective bi-centric matched-paired analysis with 296 patients was performed. Based on prostate size, 148 were matched at each centre and laser device, respectively. A 2-µm (RevoLix, LISA Laser products, Katlenburg, Germany n=148) and a 1.9-µm (vela XL, starmedtec, Starnberg, Germany, n=148) thulium laser with a power output of 90 and 80 W was used. Patients' data were assessed and compared.
RESULTS: The median prostate volume (interquartile) was 100 ml (range 86.25-120 ml). At discharge, Qmax (preoperative 7.9 and 9 ml/s vs. postoperative 19.35 and 16.2 ml/s) and postvoiding-residual urine (preoperative 130 and 45 ml vs. postoperative 20 and 25 ml) were significantly improved after 2-µm and 1.9-µm ThuVEP (p<0.001). The median catheterization time and hospitalization times were 2 and 4 days in both groups. Perioperative complications occurred in 89 patients (30.1%): Clavien 1 (12.2%), Clavien 2 (9.1%), Clavien 3a (0.7%), Clavien 3b (7.1%), and Clavien 4a (1%). Regarding the occurrence of complications, there were no differences between the two thulium devices.
CONCLUSION: ThuVEP represents a safe and effective treatment for prostates larger than 80 ml. Both thulium laser devices give satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective bi-centric matched-paired analysis with 296 patients was performed. Based on prostate size, 148 were matched at each centre and laser device, respectively. A 2-µm (RevoLix, LISA Laser products, Katlenburg, Germany n=148) and a 1.9-µm (vela XL, starmedtec, Starnberg, Germany, n=148) thulium laser with a power output of 90 and 80 W was used. Patients' data were assessed and compared.
RESULTS: The median prostate volume (interquartile) was 100 ml (range 86.25-120 ml). At discharge, Qmax (preoperative 7.9 and 9 ml/s vs. postoperative 19.35 and 16.2 ml/s) and postvoiding-residual urine (preoperative 130 and 45 ml vs. postoperative 20 and 25 ml) were significantly improved after 2-µm and 1.9-µm ThuVEP (p<0.001). The median catheterization time and hospitalization times were 2 and 4 days in both groups. Perioperative complications occurred in 89 patients (30.1%): Clavien 1 (12.2%), Clavien 2 (9.1%), Clavien 3a (0.7%), Clavien 3b (7.1%), and Clavien 4a (1%). Regarding the occurrence of complications, there were no differences between the two thulium devices.
CONCLUSION: ThuVEP represents a safe and effective treatment for prostates larger than 80 ml. Both thulium laser devices give satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app