The 532-nm 180-W (GreenLight®) laser vaporization of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms: how durable is the new side-fire fiber with integrated cooling system?
- 149 Downloads
- 4 Citations
Abstract
The 532-nm side-fire laser vaporization is established for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostate hyperplasia. Meanwhile, the third generation of this system is offered by American Medical Systems, Inc. The laser power increased from 80 and 120 to 180 W from the first to the third generation. Despite good functional results, with the 80- and 120-W systems, the removal of prostate tissue is limited because of fiber degradation. To overcome this problem, the fiber was designed newly with an integrated cooling system and a sensor for decreasing the laser energy in case of overheating. We evaluate whether the new fiber still suffers from degradation with consecutive drop of power transmission during the procedure. The power output of the cooled fiber was measured in vitro and during prostate vaporization in ten patients. Laser beam power was measured at baseline and after the application each of 50 kJ during laser vaporization. Power emission of the fiber remains constant at 20, 80, and 180 W of power settings over the whole 40-kJ lifespan. During the transurethral procedure, a median total energy of 276 kJ (standard deviation 153 kJ) was applied for vaporization. Median power output from the fiber at the end of the procedure was 97 % from the baseline value. There were no fiber malfunctions observed. In contrast to former generations, the third-generation laser fiber is durable without significant power loss during prostate vaporization.
Keywords
Benign prostatic hyperplasia BPO 532-nm side-fire laser vaporization GreenLight® Laser fiber Fiber degradationNotes
Acknowledgments
The construction of the device for the power measurement was financed by an American Medical Systems, Inc. research grant.
Conflict of interest
C. Brunken and R. Schmidt are consultants at Procter American Medical Systems, Inc.
References
- 1.Capitán C, Blázquez C, Martin MD et al (2011) GreenLight HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Urol 60:734–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Al-Ansari A, Younes N, Samping VP et al (2010) GreenLight HPS 120 W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with midterm follow up. Eur Urol 58:349–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Pereira-Correia JA, de Moraes Sousa KD, Santos JB et al (2012) GreenLight HPS 120-W laser vaporization vs transurethral resection of the prostate (<60 mL): a 2-year randomized double-blind prospective urodynamic investigation. BJU Int 110:1184–1189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Seki N, Nomura H, Yamaguchi A et al (2008) Evaluation of the learning curve for photoselective vaporization of the prostate over the course of 74 cases. J Endourol 22:1731–1735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Ahyai S, Gilling P, Kaplan S 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 58:384–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Ruszat R, Seitz M, Wyler SF et al (2008) GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate: single-center experience and long-term results after 500 procedures. Eur Urol 54:893–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Brunken C, Seitz C, Tauber S, Schmidt R (2011) Transurethral GreenLight laser enucleation of the prostate—a feasibility study. J Endourol 25:1199–1201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Malek R, Kang HW, Peng YS et al (2011) Photoselective vaporization prostatectomy: experience with a novel 180 W 532 nm lithium triborate laser and fiber delivery system in living dogs. J Urol 185:712–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Te AE (2006) The next generation in laser treatments and the role of the GreenLight high performance system laser. Rev Urol suppl 8:S24–S30Google Scholar
- 10.Schwartz J, Renard J, Wolf JP et al (2010) High-power potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser fibres for endovaporization of benign prostatic hyperplasia: how much do they deteriorate during the procedure? BJU Int 107:1938–1942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Hermanns T, Sulser T, Fatzer M et al (2009) Laser fibre deterioration and loss of power output during photoselective 80-w potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vaporization of the prostate. Eur Urol 55:679–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hermanns T, Strebel D, Hefermehl et al (2011) Lithium triborate laser vaporization of the prostate using the 120 W, high performance system laser: high performance all the way? J Urol 185:2241–2247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Heinrich E, Wendt-Nordahl G, Honek P et al (2010) 120 W lithium triborate laser for photoselective vaporization of the prostate: comparison with 80 W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser in an ex-vivo model. J Endourol 24:75–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Bachmann A, Muir G, Collins E et al (2012) 180-W XPS GreenLight laser therapy for benign prostate hyperplasia: early safety, efficacy and perioperative outcome after 201 procedures. Eur Urol 61:600–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar