Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized prospective trial of the severity of irritative symptoms after HoLEP vs ThuFLEP

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the short-term postoperative functional outcomes and severity of irritative symptoms following holmium and thulium fiber laser enucleation (HoLEP and ThuFLEP).

Methods

This prospective randomized single-blinded study was performed in accordance with CONSORT. The inclusion criteria were IPSS > 20 or Qmax < 10 ml/s. Patients were randomized between HoLEP and ThuFLEP. Demographics, objective data (PSA, prostate volume, etc.), data on urinary and sexual function (IPSS, IIEF, QoL, QUID, Qmax, ICIQ-MLUTS) were collected. Detailed perioperative information and postoperative data on functional outcomes at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 weeks and 6 months were collected.

Results

Data on 163 participants were included (77—HoLEP, 86—ThuFLEP). No differences were found in surgery duration; number of postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo I-III), catheterization time and hospital stay. Functional outcomes up to 6 months didn’t differ between the groups (IPPS, IIEF, QoL, QUID, ICIQ-MLUTS, Qmax, p > 0.05). Total ICIQ‐MLUTS, bother and voiding scores at 1 and 3 months significantly increased compared with the baseline in both groups (p < 0.05). No difference between the groups were observed. In HoLEP the SUI series rate was 1.3% and 1.3% after 3 and 6 months following the procedure; in ThuFLEP: it was 3.5% and 2.3% respectively (p = 0.35 and p = 0.54).

Conclusion

The preliminary results of the study showed no apparent differences in functional outcomes (IPSS, Qmax), rate of SUI or irritative symptoms. Both ThuFLEP and HoLEP are efficient ways of treating benign prostatic obstruction. Both surgeries are comparable in terms of duration and postoperative complication rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

On demand.

Code availability (software application or custom code)

On demand.

References

  1. EAU Guidelines: management of non-neurogenic Male LUTS | Uroweb n.d. https://uroweb.org/guideline/treatment-of-non-neurogenic-male-luts/#5 (Accessed February 5, 2021)

  2. Kuntz RM, Lehrich K, Ahyai SA (2008) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus open prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 grams: 5-Year Follow-Up Results of a Randomised Clinical Trial. Eur Urol 53:160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) Guideline - American Urological Association n.d. https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/guidelines/benign-prostatic-hyperplasia-(bph)-guideline (Accessed July 27, 2021)

  4. Cornu J-NN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, De La Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C, et al (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: An update. vol. 67. Elsevier https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.017

  5. Tooher R, Sutherland P, Costello A, Gilling P, Rees G, Maddern G (2004) A systematic review of holmium laser prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 171:1773–1781. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000113494.03668.6d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, Kuntz RM, Madersbacher S, Montorsi F et al (2010) Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 58:384–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Enikeev D, Glybochko P, Okhunov Z, Alyaev Y, Rapoport L, Tsarichenko D et al (2018) Retrospective analysis of short-term outcomes after monopolar versus laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a single center experience. J Endourol 32:417–423. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Enikeev D, Rapoport L, Gazimiev M, Allenov S, Inoyatov J, Taratkin M et al (2020) Monopolar enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for small- and medium-sized (< 80 cc) benign prostate hyperplasia: a prospective analysis. World J Urol 38:167–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02757-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peyronnet B, Robert G, Comat V, Rouprêt M, Gomez-Sancha F, Cornu J-NN, et al (2017) Learning curves and perioperative outcomes after endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a comparison between GreenLight 532-nm and holmium lasers. World J Urol 35:973–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1957-5.

  10. Herrmann TRWW (2016) Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation. World J Urol 34:1353–1355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1922-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pallauf M, Kunit T, Ramesmayer C, Deininger S, Herrmann TRW, Lusuardi L. Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP). The same but different—a systematic review. World J Urol 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03705-6.

  12. Fried NMM, Murray KEE (2005) New technologies in endourology: High-power thulium fiber laser ablation of urinary tissues at 1.94 μm. J Endourol 19:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2005.19.25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Enikeev D, Netsch C, Rapoport L, Gazimiev M, Laukhtina E, Snurnitsyna O et al (2019) Novel thulium fiber laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A prospective comparison with conventional transurethral resection of the prostate. Int J Urol 26:1138–1143. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sealed Envelope | Power calculator for binary outcome non-inferiority trial n.d. https://www.sealedenvelope.com/power/binary-noninferior/ (Accessed February 5, 2021)

  15. Enikeev D, Taratkin M, Laukhtina E, Alekseeva T, Snurnitsyna O, Potoldykova N et al (2019) En bloc and two-lobe techniques for laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: retrospective comparative analysis of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Int Urol Nephrol 51:1969–1974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02259-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Taratkin M, Kovalenko A, Laukhtina E, Paramonova N, Spivak L, Wachtendorf LJJ et al (2020) Ex vivo study of Ho:YAG and thulium fiber lasers for soft tissue surgery: which laser for which case? Lasers Med Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-020-03189-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bach T, Wendt-Nordahl G, Michel MS, Herrmann TRW, Gross AJ (2009) Feasibility and efficacy of Thulium:YAG laser enucleation (VapoEnucleation) of the prostate. World J Urol 27:541–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0370-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Becker B, Herrmann TRW, Gross AJ, Netsch C (2018) Thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of large volume prostates: preliminary 6-month safety and efficacy results of a prospective randomized trial. World J Urol 36:1663–1671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2321-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Herrmann TRW, Bach T, Imkamp F, Georgiou A, Burchardt M, Oelke M et al (2010) Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP): Transurethral anatomical prostatectomy with laser support. Introduction of a novel technique for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. World J Urol 28:45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-009-0503-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Enikeev D, Glybochko P, Rapoport L, Gahan J, Gazimiev M, Spivak L et al (2018) A randomized trial comparing the learning curve of 3 endoscopic enucleation techniques (HoLEP, ThuFLEP, and MEP) for BPH Using Mentoring Approach—Initial Results. Urology 121:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fried NM (2006) Therapeutic applications of lasers in urology: an update. Expert Rev Med Devices 3:81–94. https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.3.1.81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Romero-Otero J, García-Gómez B, García-González L, García-Rojo E, Abad-López P, Justo-Quintas J et al (2020) Critical analysis of a multicentric experience with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: outcomes and complications of 10 years of routine clinical practice. BJU Int 126:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15028

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Houssin V, Olivier J, Brenier M, Pierache A, Laniado M, Mouton M et al (2020) Predictive factors of urinary incontinence after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a multicentric evaluation. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03169-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fallara G, Capogrosso P, Schifano N, Costa A, Candela L, Cazzaniga W et al (2020) Ten-year follow-up results after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Eur Urol Focus 7:5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.05.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Elmansy HM, Kotb A, Elhilali MM (2011) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Long-term durability of clinical outcomes and complication rates during 10 years of followup. J Urol 186:1972–1976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Enikeev D, Okhunov Z, Rapoport L, Taratkin M, Enikeev M, Snurnitsyna O et al (2019) Novel thulium fiber laser for enucleation of prostate: a retrospective comparison with open simple prostatectomy. J Endourol 33:16–21. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Herrmann TRW, Gravas S, de la Rosette JJ, Wolters M, Anastasiadis AG, Giannakis I (2020) Lasers in transurethral enucleation of the prostate—Do we really need them. J Clin Med 9:1412. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9051412

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Morozov A, Taratkin M, Kozlov V, Tarasov A, Bezrukov E, Enikeev M et al (2020) Retrospective assessment of endoscopic enucleation of prostate complications: a single-center experience of more than 1400 patients. J Endourol 34:192–197. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nottingham CU, Large T, Agarwal DK, Rivera ME, Krambeck AE (2021) Comparison of newly optimized Moses technology vs standard holmium:YAG for endoscopic laser enucleation of the prostate. J Endourol 35:1393–1399. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nevo A, Faraj KS, Cheney SM, Moore JP, Stern KL, Borofsky M et al (2021) Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using Moses 2.0 vs non-Moses: a randomised controlled trial. BJU Int 127:553–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rücker F, Lehrich K, Böhme A, Zacharias M, Ahyai SA, Hansen J (2021) A call for HoLEP: en-bloc vs. two-lobe vs. three-lobe. World J Urol 39:2337–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03598-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Bolshaya Pirogovskaya str. 2 bld. 1, Moscow, Russia, 119991

    Dmitry Enikeev, Mark Taratkin, Andrey Morozov, Vladislav Petov, Roman Sukhanov, Evgeny Shpot, Denis Chinenov & Mikhail Enikeev

  2. Institute for Clinical Medicine, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia

    Diana Babaevskaya

  3. Department of Urology, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France

    Vincent Misrai

  4. Department of Urology, Spital Thurgau AG, Pfaffenholzstrasse 4, 8501, Frauenfeld, Switzerland

    Thomas Herrmann

  5. Department of Urology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

    Thomas Herrmann

Authors
  1. Dmitry Enikeev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Taratkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diana Babaevskaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrey Morozov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vladislav Petov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roman Sukhanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Evgeny Shpot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vincent Misrai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Denis Chinenov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mikhail Enikeev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Thomas Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DE: data analysis, manuscript editing, protocol development, management; MT: manuscript writing/editing, protocol development, data analysis, statistical analysis; DB: manuscript writing/editing, data analysis, statistical analysis; AM: manuscript editing, protocol development, data analysis; VP: manuscript writing/editing, data analysis, statistical analysis; RS: data analysis, manuscript editing, full-text review; ES: data analysis, manuscript editing, full-text review; VM: data analysis, manuscript editing, full-text review; DC: data analysis, manuscript editing, full-text review; ME: data analysis, manuscript editing, full-text review; TH: protocol development, manuscript editing, full-text review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dmitry Enikeev.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Sechenov University (Moscow, Russia) Institutional Review Board.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 14 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Enikeev, D., Taratkin, M., Babaevskaya, D. et al. Randomized prospective trial of the severity of irritative symptoms after HoLEP vs ThuFLEP. World J Urol 40, 2047–2053 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04046-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04046-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation