Thirty versus 60-Watt thulium laser enucleation of prostate: Toward the development of low-power anatomical enucleation of the prostate

IF 0.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urology Annals Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.4103/ua.ua_159_22
Mohamed Omar, Mohamed Marzouk Abdullah, Ahmed Moustafa, Sultan Sultan
{"title":"Thirty versus 60-Watt thulium laser enucleation of prostate: Toward the development of low-power anatomical enucleation of the prostate","authors":"Mohamed Omar, Mohamed Marzouk Abdullah, Ahmed Moustafa, Sultan Sultan","doi":"10.4103/ua.ua_159_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n We aimed to study whether using 30 W versus 60 W thulium enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) would affect postoperative outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).\n \n \n \n We prospectively identified male patients with moderate or severe lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH. We randomized patients into 30 W (Group 1) or 60 W (Group 2) thulium yag laser with a 550 μm laser fiber and a 26 Fr continuous flow resectoscope. We collected data related to prostate size, enucleation time, morcellation time, laser time, perioperative complications, and 1-year functional outcomes.\n \n \n \n A total of 120 patients were included, with a mean age of 67 years and a mean prostate size of 105 g. The preoperative characteristics were similar across both groups. The mean operative time was shorter in the 60 W group, 74 ± 27 vs. 91 ± 33 min in the 30 W group (P = 0.001), and the mean laser time was 55 ± 20 in 60 W versus 71 ± 25 in 30 W (P = 0.0001). The mean hospital stay was 1 day in both groups and at 1-year follow-up; there was a similar improvement in mean Qmax and International Prostate Symptom Score symptom scores.\n \n \n \n Both 30 and 60 W ThuLEP provided a safe and comparable outcome with a relatively shorter operative time for the 60 W groups. Perhaps using a 30-W setting would be beneficial in the early learning curve or cases with more bleeding capsular perforators; besides, the financial benefit of manufacturing low-cost low-power devices that may help in the widespread of AEEP.\n","PeriodicalId":23633,"journal":{"name":"Urology Annals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_159_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We aimed to study whether using 30 W versus 60 W thulium enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) would affect postoperative outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We prospectively identified male patients with moderate or severe lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH. We randomized patients into 30 W (Group 1) or 60 W (Group 2) thulium yag laser with a 550 μm laser fiber and a 26 Fr continuous flow resectoscope. We collected data related to prostate size, enucleation time, morcellation time, laser time, perioperative complications, and 1-year functional outcomes. A total of 120 patients were included, with a mean age of 67 years and a mean prostate size of 105 g. The preoperative characteristics were similar across both groups. The mean operative time was shorter in the 60 W group, 74 ± 27 vs. 91 ± 33 min in the 30 W group (P = 0.001), and the mean laser time was 55 ± 20 in 60 W versus 71 ± 25 in 30 W (P = 0.0001). The mean hospital stay was 1 day in both groups and at 1-year follow-up; there was a similar improvement in mean Qmax and International Prostate Symptom Score symptom scores. Both 30 and 60 W ThuLEP provided a safe and comparable outcome with a relatively shorter operative time for the 60 W groups. Perhaps using a 30-W setting would be beneficial in the early learning curve or cases with more bleeding capsular perforators; besides, the financial benefit of manufacturing low-cost low-power devices that may help in the widespread of AEEP.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
30瓦与60瓦铥激光前列腺去核术的比较:开发低功率前列腺解剖去核术
我们的目的是研究使用 30 W 铥前列腺去核术(ThuLEP)与使用 60 W 铥前列腺去核术(ThuLEP)是否会影响良性前列腺增生症(BPH)患者的术后效果。 我们通过前瞻性研究确定了因良性前列腺增生症而出现中度或重度下尿路症状的男性患者。我们将患者随机分为 30 W(第 1 组)或 60 W(第 2 组)掺铥钇钕石榴石激光、550 μm 激光光纤和 26 Fr 连续流切除镜两组。我们收集了与前列腺大小、去核时间、切除时间、激光时间、围手术期并发症和 1 年功能预后相关的数据。 两组患者的术前特征相似。60 W组的平均手术时间较短,为74±27分钟,而30 W组为91±33分钟(P = 0.001);60 W组的平均激光时间为55±20分钟,而30 W组为71±25分钟(P = 0.0001)。两组的平均住院时间均为 1 天,随访 1 年时,平均 Qmax 和国际前列腺症状评分的症状评分改善情况相似。 30 瓦和 60 瓦 ThuLEP 都能提供安全和可比的结果,60 瓦组的手术时间相对较短。在早期学习曲线或有较多囊膜穿孔出血的病例中,使用 30 瓦的设置可能更有益处;此外,制造低成本、低功率设备的经济效益可能有助于 AEEP 的普及。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urology Annals
Urology Annals UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊最新文献
The impact of age, sex, comorbidities, and use of antithrombotics on the clinical course severity among patients surgically treated for urinary bladder tamponade Office-based pediatric urology procedures Race-modified estimated glomerular filtration rate underestimates chronic kidney disease prevalence in Black patients undergoing partial and radical nephrectomy: Implications for surgical planning Sperm extraction in nonmosaic Klinefelter syndrome patients: A case series and literature review of sperm extraction in Klinefelter syndrome patients Role of lingual mucosa as a graft material in the surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1