Content

Welcome to the CJU website » LOG IN

Details

A retrospective comparison of diode to holmium for laser enucleation of the prostate
Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Aug 2019 (Vol. 26, Issue 4, Pages( 9836 - 9842)
PMID: 31469639

Abstract

Text-Size + 

  • INTRODUCTION:

    Holmium endoscopic laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a well-established alternative to traditional transurethral resection and open prostatectomy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We investigate the 1470 nm diode laser for enucleation as an alternative to HoLEP. The safety, efficacy, and initial outcomes of diode enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP), when compared to HoLEP, were examined.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS:

    We reviewed records of 50 patients who underwent DiLEP between 2012 and 2015 and matched them with 50 HoLEP patients during the same time period. Objective evaluation of efficacy was determined by comparing preoperative post-void residual volume (PVR) and peak flow (Qmax) to postoperative values at 4-16 weeks and 1 year following surgery. Subjective evaluation was measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) before and after the operation. Safety was evaluated by the development of persistent Clavien-Dindo grade 1, or 2 or higher postoperative complications. Statistical analyses were conducted using chi-squared and paired Student's t-tests.

    RESULTS:

    Subjective and objective postoperative results showed no difference between DiLEP and HoLEP. Average PVR volume following DiLEP was 47.1 mL at 1 year. The mean increase in Qmax was 16.4 mL/s at 1 year. The IPSS improved by a mean of 12.7 points, and by 2.6 points on quality of life questioning at 1 year post operation. Compared to HoLEP patients there was no statistically significant difference. Safety assessments were the same across both procedures.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    Diode laser is safe and effective for use in patients with BPH, with no significant difference in outcomes compared to HoLEP.

Current Issue

August 2019, Vol.26 No.4
canadian journal of urology