A prospective multicenter randomized comparison between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP)
Purpose To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up. Methods A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive pa...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | World journal of urology 2021-07, Vol.39 (7), p.2375-2382 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2382 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 2375 |
container_title | World journal of urology |
container_volume | 39 |
creator | Bozzini, Giorgio Berti, Lorenzo Aydoğan, Tahsin Batuhan Maltagliati, Matteo Roche, Jean Baptiste Bove, Pierluigi Besana, Umberto Calori, Alberto Pastore, Antonio Luigi Müller, Alexander Micali, Salvatore Sighinolfi, Maria Chiara Rocco, Bernardo Buizza, Carlo |
description | Purpose
To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up.
Methods
A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive patients who underwent ThuLEP (
n
= 115), or HoLEP (
n
= 121) in three different centers. Intra and perioperative parameters were analyzed: operative time, enucleated tissue weight, irrigation volume, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay and complications. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively with the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the quality of life (QoL) score, post-void residual volume (PVR), PSA and maximum flow rate (
Q
max
).
Results
Preoperative variables in each study arm did not show any significant difference. Compared to HoLEP, ThuLEP showed similar operative time (63.69 vs 71.66 min,
p
= 0.245), enucleated tissue weight (48.84 vs 51.13 g,
p
= 0.321), catheterization time (1.9 vs 2.0 days,
p
= 0.450) and hospital stay (2.2 vs 2.8 days,
p
= 0.216), but resulted in less haemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.77 g/dL,
p
= 0.005). HoLEP presented a significantly higher number of patients with postoperative acute urinary retention and stress incontinence. No significant differences were found in PSA,
Q
max
, PVR, IPSS and QoL score during follow-up.
Conclusion
ThuLEP and HoLEP both relieved lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP detemined reduced blood loss and early postoperative complications. Catheterization time, enucleated tissue, hospital stay, operative time and follow-up parameters did not show any significant difference. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00345-020-03468-6 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2447541558</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2447541558</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-928d1ee8bbb61e080d6c9f08561a53d28c0c74a90537c16b5fe723ac83116c963</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1qHDEQhIWxIeufF8hJkIt9mKQljX72aMw6a1jIHuyz0Gh67DEzo42kiUmeJo8arTcQ8MHk1H34qqjuIuQjg88MQH9JAKKWFXCoyqJMpY7IgtVCVEZzdUwWoHld1UsjPpDTlJ4BmFYgF-T3Nd3FkHboc_8D6TgPufc4ZYw0uqkNY_8LW-rDuHOxT2GiDeYXxImuwzD280g3LhV2Nc1-QJf7QoSO5iek22KbXUZ6uQ6b1faKFjt6_zQP_6kq6F52Tk46NyS8-DvPyMPt6v5mXW2-fb27ud5UXkieqyU3LUM0TdMohmCgVX7ZgZGKOSlabjx4XbslSKE9U43sUHPhvBGMFVKJM3J58C3v-D5jynbsk8dhcBOGOVle11rWTEpT0E9v0Ocwx6mks1xKrbSRWheKHyhfTkoRO7uL_ejiT8vA7kuzh9JsKc2-lmb3KcRBlAo8PWL8Z_2O6g9xqZsK</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2557678577</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A prospective multicenter randomized comparison between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP)</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Bozzini, Giorgio ; Berti, Lorenzo ; Aydoğan, Tahsin Batuhan ; Maltagliati, Matteo ; Roche, Jean Baptiste ; Bove, Pierluigi ; Besana, Umberto ; Calori, Alberto ; Pastore, Antonio Luigi ; Müller, Alexander ; Micali, Salvatore ; Sighinolfi, Maria Chiara ; Rocco, Bernardo ; Buizza, Carlo</creator><creatorcontrib>Bozzini, Giorgio ; Berti, Lorenzo ; Aydoğan, Tahsin Batuhan ; Maltagliati, Matteo ; Roche, Jean Baptiste ; Bove, Pierluigi ; Besana, Umberto ; Calori, Alberto ; Pastore, Antonio Luigi ; Müller, Alexander ; Micali, Salvatore ; Sighinolfi, Maria Chiara ; Rocco, Bernardo ; Buizza, Carlo</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up.
Methods
A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive patients who underwent ThuLEP (
n
= 115), or HoLEP (
n
= 121) in three different centers. Intra and perioperative parameters were analyzed: operative time, enucleated tissue weight, irrigation volume, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay and complications. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively with the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the quality of life (QoL) score, post-void residual volume (PVR), PSA and maximum flow rate (
Q
max
).
Results
Preoperative variables in each study arm did not show any significant difference. Compared to HoLEP, ThuLEP showed similar operative time (63.69 vs 71.66 min,
p
= 0.245), enucleated tissue weight (48.84 vs 51.13 g,
p
= 0.321), catheterization time (1.9 vs 2.0 days,
p
= 0.450) and hospital stay (2.2 vs 2.8 days,
p
= 0.216), but resulted in less haemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.77 g/dL,
p
= 0.005). HoLEP presented a significantly higher number of patients with postoperative acute urinary retention and stress incontinence. No significant differences were found in PSA,
Q
max
, PVR, IPSS and QoL score during follow-up.
Conclusion
ThuLEP and HoLEP both relieved lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP detemined reduced blood loss and early postoperative complications. Catheterization time, enucleated tissue, hospital stay, operative time and follow-up parameters did not show any significant difference.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0724-4983</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-8726</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03468-6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Catheterization ; Enucleation ; Hemoglobin ; Hyperplasia ; Intubation ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Nephrology ; Oncology ; Patients ; Prostate ; Quality of life ; Topic Paper ; Urinary tract ; Urology</subject><ispartof>World journal of urology, 2021-07, Vol.39 (7), p.2375-2382</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-928d1ee8bbb61e080d6c9f08561a53d28c0c74a90537c16b5fe723ac83116c963</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-928d1ee8bbb61e080d6c9f08561a53d28c0c74a90537c16b5fe723ac83116c963</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6274-314X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00345-020-03468-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00345-020-03468-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bozzini, Giorgio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berti, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydoğan, Tahsin Batuhan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maltagliati, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roche, Jean Baptiste</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bove, Pierluigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Besana, Umberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calori, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pastore, Antonio Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Müller, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Micali, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sighinolfi, Maria Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocco, Bernardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buizza, Carlo</creatorcontrib><title>A prospective multicenter randomized comparison between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP)</title><title>World journal of urology</title><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><description>Purpose
To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up.
Methods
A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive patients who underwent ThuLEP (
n
= 115), or HoLEP (
n
= 121) in three different centers. Intra and perioperative parameters were analyzed: operative time, enucleated tissue weight, irrigation volume, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay and complications. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively with the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the quality of life (QoL) score, post-void residual volume (PVR), PSA and maximum flow rate (
Q
max
).
Results
Preoperative variables in each study arm did not show any significant difference. Compared to HoLEP, ThuLEP showed similar operative time (63.69 vs 71.66 min,
p
= 0.245), enucleated tissue weight (48.84 vs 51.13 g,
p
= 0.321), catheterization time (1.9 vs 2.0 days,
p
= 0.450) and hospital stay (2.2 vs 2.8 days,
p
= 0.216), but resulted in less haemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.77 g/dL,
p
= 0.005). HoLEP presented a significantly higher number of patients with postoperative acute urinary retention and stress incontinence. No significant differences were found in PSA,
Q
max
, PVR, IPSS and QoL score during follow-up.
Conclusion
ThuLEP and HoLEP both relieved lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP detemined reduced blood loss and early postoperative complications. Catheterization time, enucleated tissue, hospital stay, operative time and follow-up parameters did not show any significant difference.</description><subject>Catheterization</subject><subject>Enucleation</subject><subject>Hemoglobin</subject><subject>Hyperplasia</subject><subject>Intubation</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Nephrology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostate</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Topic Paper</subject><subject>Urinary tract</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0724-4983</issn><issn>1433-8726</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1qHDEQhIWxIeufF8hJkIt9mKQljX72aMw6a1jIHuyz0Gh67DEzo42kiUmeJo8arTcQ8MHk1H34qqjuIuQjg88MQH9JAKKWFXCoyqJMpY7IgtVCVEZzdUwWoHld1UsjPpDTlJ4BmFYgF-T3Nd3FkHboc_8D6TgPufc4ZYw0uqkNY_8LW-rDuHOxT2GiDeYXxImuwzD280g3LhV2Nc1-QJf7QoSO5iek22KbXUZ6uQ6b1faKFjt6_zQP_6kq6F52Tk46NyS8-DvPyMPt6v5mXW2-fb27ud5UXkieqyU3LUM0TdMohmCgVX7ZgZGKOSlabjx4XbslSKE9U43sUHPhvBGMFVKJM3J58C3v-D5jynbsk8dhcBOGOVle11rWTEpT0E9v0Ocwx6mks1xKrbSRWheKHyhfTkoRO7uL_ejiT8vA7kuzh9JsKc2-lmb3KcRBlAo8PWL8Z_2O6g9xqZsK</recordid><startdate>20210701</startdate><enddate>20210701</enddate><creator>Bozzini, Giorgio</creator><creator>Berti, Lorenzo</creator><creator>Aydoğan, Tahsin Batuhan</creator><creator>Maltagliati, Matteo</creator><creator>Roche, Jean Baptiste</creator><creator>Bove, Pierluigi</creator><creator>Besana, Umberto</creator><creator>Calori, Alberto</creator><creator>Pastore, Antonio Luigi</creator><creator>Müller, Alexander</creator><creator>Micali, Salvatore</creator><creator>Sighinolfi, Maria Chiara</creator><creator>Rocco, Bernardo</creator><creator>Buizza, Carlo</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6274-314X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210701</creationdate><title>A prospective multicenter randomized comparison between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP)</title><author>Bozzini, Giorgio ; Berti, Lorenzo ; Aydoğan, Tahsin Batuhan ; Maltagliati, Matteo ; Roche, Jean Baptiste ; Bove, Pierluigi ; Besana, Umberto ; Calori, Alberto ; Pastore, Antonio Luigi ; Müller, Alexander ; Micali, Salvatore ; Sighinolfi, Maria Chiara ; Rocco, Bernardo ; Buizza, Carlo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-928d1ee8bbb61e080d6c9f08561a53d28c0c74a90537c16b5fe723ac83116c963</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Catheterization</topic><topic>Enucleation</topic><topic>Hemoglobin</topic><topic>Hyperplasia</topic><topic>Intubation</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Nephrology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostate</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Topic Paper</topic><topic>Urinary tract</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bozzini, Giorgio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berti, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydoğan, Tahsin Batuhan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maltagliati, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roche, Jean Baptiste</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bove, Pierluigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Besana, Umberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calori, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pastore, Antonio Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Müller, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Micali, Salvatore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sighinolfi, Maria Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocco, Bernardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buizza, Carlo</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bozzini, Giorgio</au><au>Berti, Lorenzo</au><au>Aydoğan, Tahsin Batuhan</au><au>Maltagliati, Matteo</au><au>Roche, Jean Baptiste</au><au>Bove, Pierluigi</au><au>Besana, Umberto</au><au>Calori, Alberto</au><au>Pastore, Antonio Luigi</au><au>Müller, Alexander</au><au>Micali, Salvatore</au><au>Sighinolfi, Maria Chiara</au><au>Rocco, Bernardo</au><au>Buizza, Carlo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A prospective multicenter randomized comparison between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP)</atitle><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle><stitle>World J Urol</stitle><date>2021-07-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>2375</spage><epage>2382</epage><pages>2375-2382</pages><issn>0724-4983</issn><eissn>1433-8726</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up.
Methods
A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive patients who underwent ThuLEP (
n
= 115), or HoLEP (
n
= 121) in three different centers. Intra and perioperative parameters were analyzed: operative time, enucleated tissue weight, irrigation volume, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay and complications. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively with the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the quality of life (QoL) score, post-void residual volume (PVR), PSA and maximum flow rate (
Q
max
).
Results
Preoperative variables in each study arm did not show any significant difference. Compared to HoLEP, ThuLEP showed similar operative time (63.69 vs 71.66 min,
p
= 0.245), enucleated tissue weight (48.84 vs 51.13 g,
p
= 0.321), catheterization time (1.9 vs 2.0 days,
p
= 0.450) and hospital stay (2.2 vs 2.8 days,
p
= 0.216), but resulted in less haemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.77 g/dL,
p
= 0.005). HoLEP presented a significantly higher number of patients with postoperative acute urinary retention and stress incontinence. No significant differences were found in PSA,
Q
max
, PVR, IPSS and QoL score during follow-up.
Conclusion
ThuLEP and HoLEP both relieved lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP detemined reduced blood loss and early postoperative complications. Catheterization time, enucleated tissue, hospital stay, operative time and follow-up parameters did not show any significant difference.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s00345-020-03468-6</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6274-314X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0724-4983 |
ispartof | World journal of urology, 2021-07, Vol.39 (7), p.2375-2382 |
issn | 0724-4983 1433-8726 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2447541558 |
source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Catheterization Enucleation Hemoglobin Hyperplasia Intubation Medicine Medicine & Public Health Nephrology Oncology Patients Prostate Quality of life Topic Paper Urinary tract Urology |
title | A prospective multicenter randomized comparison between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP) |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T23%3A15%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20prospective%20multicenter%20randomized%20comparison%20between%20Holmium%20Laser%20Enucleation%20of%20the%20Prostate%20(HoLEP)%20and%20Thulium%20Laser%20Enucleation%20of%20the%20Prostate%20(ThuLEP)&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20urology&rft.au=Bozzini,%20Giorgio&rft.date=2021-07-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=2375&rft.epage=2382&rft.pages=2375-2382&rft.issn=0724-4983&rft.eissn=1433-8726&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00345-020-03468-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2447541558%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2557678577&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |