Advertisement

Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 33, Issue 8, pp 1693–1698 | Cite as

Green Light photoselective vaporization of the prostate: a safe and effective treatment for elderly high-risk benign prostate hyperplasia patients with gland over 80 ml

  • Jie Sun
  • An Shi
  • Zhen Tong
  • Chenfei Chi
Original Article

Abstract

To analyze the efficacy of Green Light photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) in elderly high-risk benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with glands over 80 ml. From December 2013 to February 2016, we allocated 84 elderly (age 71–97) high-risk patients who underwent preoperative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) examination with glands over 80 ml and divided them into two groups to receive 120 W (n = 40) and 180 W (n = 44) PVP. All the patients have been observed at least one intraoperative comorbidity: hypertension, diabetes mellitus, NYHA II, or combined. They were followed up for 12 months. All the conventional parameters were compared in this study. All the patients received successful operations without severe complications, and no patient needed blood transfusion. The operation time and catheterization time of the 180 W patients were significantly shorter than that of the 120 W patients (p < 0.05). The International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) scores, maximum flow rate (Qmax), and residual urine volume (RUV) in both groups have been significantly improved. PVP is safe and effective for high-risk aging patients with gland over 80 ml. In addition, 180 W XPS system has a short operation time and catheterization time and less inflammatory response.

Keywords

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) Lower urinary tract symptoms Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) High-risk Aging population 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

All patients have signed informed consent documents and agreed to receive the treatment. This study has been proved by the Ethics Committee of our hospital.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Irwin DE, Milsom I, Hunskaar S, Reilly K, Kopp Z, Herschorn S, Coyne K, Kelleher C, Hampel C, Artibani W, Abrams P (2006) Population-based survey of urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and other lower urinary tract symptoms in five countries: results of the EPIC study. Eur Urol 50(6):1306–1314; discussion 1314-1305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim EH, Larson JA, Andriole GL (2016) Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Annu Rev Med 67:137–151.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-063014-123902 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lepor H, Kazzazi A, Djavan B (2012) Alpha-blockers for benign prostatic hyperplasia: the new era. Curr Opin Urol 22(1):7–15.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e32834d9bfd CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yeo JK, Choi H, Bae JH, Kim JH, Yang SO, Oh CY, Cho YS, Kim KW, Kim HJ (2016) Korean clinical practice guideline for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Investig Clin Urol 57(1):30–44.  https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.1.30 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yu X, Elliott SP, Wilt TJ, McBean AM (2008) Practice patterns in benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical therapy: the dramatic increase in minimally invasive technologies. J Urol 180(1):241–245; discussion 245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christidis D, McGrath S, Perera M, Manning T, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk N (2017) Minimally invasive surgical therapies for benign prostatic hypertrophy: the rise in minimally invasive surgical therapies. Prostate Int 5(2):41–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2017.01.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sievert KD, Kunit T (2017) Emerging techniques in ‘truly’ minimal-invasive treatment options of benign prostatic obstruction. Curr Opin Urol 27(3):287–292.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000386 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broggi E, May A, Giretti G, Tabchouri N, Lorphelin H, Brichart N, Bruyere F (2014) Long-term outcomes of 80-watt KTP and 120-watt HPS GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate. Urol Int 93(2):229–236.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000356991 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bachmann A, Muir GH, Collins EJ, Choi BB, Tabatabaei S, Reich OM, Gomez-Sancha F, Woo HH (2012) 180-W XPS GreenLight laser therapy for benign prostate hyperplasia: early safety, efficacy, and perioperative outcome after 201 procedures. Eur Urol 61(3):600–607.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Ansari A, Younes N, Sampige VP, Al-Rumaihi K, Ghafouri A, Gul T, Shokeir AA (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(3):349–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.05.026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson BB, Pariser JJ, Helfand BT (2015) Comparison of patients undergoing PVP versus TURP for LUTS/BPH. Curr Urol Rep 16(8):55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0525-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bachmann A, Tubaro A, Barber N, d'Ancona F, Muir G, Witzsch U, Grimm MO, Benejam J, Stolzenburg JU, Riddick A, Pahernik S, Roelink H, Ameye F, Saussine C, Bruyere F, Loidl W, Larner T, Gogoi NK, Hindley R, Muschter R, Thorpe A, Shrotri N, Graham S, Hamann M, Miller K, Schostak M, Capitan C, Knispel H, Thomas JA (2014) 180-W XPS GreenLight laser vaporisation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 6-month safety and efficacy results of a European Multicentre Randomised Trial—the GOLIATH study. Eur Urol 65(5):931–942.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emara AM, Barber NJ (2014) The continuous evolution of the Greenlight laser; the XPS generator and the MoXy laser fiber, expanding the indications for photoselective vaporization of the prostate. J Endourol 28(1):73–78.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0356 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee DJ, Rieken M, Halpern J, Zhao F, Pueschel H, Chughtai B, Kaplan SA, Lee RK, Bachmann A, Te AE (2016) Laser vaporization of the prostate with the 180-W XPS-Greenlight laser in patients with ongoing platelet aggregation inhibition and oral anticoagulation. Urology 91:167–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.01.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rieken M, Bachmann A, Shariat SF (2016) Long-term follow-up data more than 5 years after surgical management of benign prostate obstruction: who stands the test of time? Curr Opin Urol 26(1):22–27.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000244 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mavuduru RM, Mandal AK, Singh SK, Acharya N, Agarwal M, Garg S, Kumar S (2009) Comparison of HoLEP and TURP in terms of efficacy in the early postoperative period and perioperative morbidity. Urol Int 82(2):130–135.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000200786 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pathak RA, Broderick GA, Igel TC, Petrou SP, Young PR, Wehle MJ, Heckman MG, Diehl NN, Vargas ER, Shah K, Thiel DD (2017) Impact of minimally invasive benign prostatic hyperplasia therapies on 30- and 90-day postoperative office encounters. Urology 99:186–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.10.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berquet G, Corbel L, Della Negra E, Huet R, Trifard F, Codet Y, Bouliere F, Verhoest G, Vincendeau S, Bensalah K, Mathieu R (2015) Prospective evaluation of ambulatory laser vaporization of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Lasers Surg Med 47(5):396–402.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.22363 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bouchier-Hayes DM, Van Appledorn S, Bugeja P, Crowe H, Challacombe B, Costello AJ (2010) A randomized trial of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vs transurethral prostatectomy, with a 1-year follow-up. BJU Int 105(7):964–969.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08961.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lukacs B, Loeffler J, Bruyere F, Blanchet P, Gelet A, Coloby P, De la Taille A, Lemaire P, Baron JC, Cornu JN, Aout M, Rousseau H, Vicaut E, Group RS (2012) Photoselective vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight 120-W laser compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol 61(6):1165–1173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zorn KC, Liberman D (2011) GreenLight 180W XPS photovaporization of the prostate: how I do it. Can J Urol 18(5):5918–5926PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eken A, Soyupak B, Acil M, Arpaci T, Akbas T (2015) Safety, efficacy and outcomes of the new GreenLight XPS 180W laser system compared to the GreenLight HPS 120W system for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in a prospective nonrandomized single-centre study. Can Urol Assoc J 9(1–2):e56–e60.  https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2263 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sohn JH, Choi YS, Kim SJ, Cho HJ, Hong SH, Lee JY, Hwang TK, Kim SW (2011) Effectiveness and safety of photoselective vaporization of the prostate with the 120 W HPS Greenlight laser in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients taking oral anticoagulants. Korean J Urol 52(3):178–183.  https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2011.52.3.178 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cakiroglu B, Gozukucuk R, Sinanoglu O (2013) Efficacy and safety of 120 w greenlight photoselective vaporisation of prostate in patients receiving anticoagulant drugs. J Pak Med Assoc 63(12):1464–1467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Elterman DS (2015) How I do it: GreenLight XPS 180W photoselective vaporization of the prostate. Can J Urol 22(3):7836–7843PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ben-Zvi T, Hueber PA, Liberman D, Valdivieso R, Zorn KC (2013) GreenLight XPS 180W vs HPS 120W laser therapy for benign prostate hyperplasia: a prospective comparative analysis after 200 cases in a single-center study. Urology 81(4):853–858.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luo F, Sun HH, Su YH, Zhang ZH, Wang YS, Zhao Z, Li J (2017) GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia/lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with different post-void residual urine. Lasers Med Sci 32(4):895–901.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-017-2190-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hueber PA, Liberman D, Ben-Zvi T, Woo H, Hai MA, Te AE, Chughtai B, Lee R, Rutman M, Gonzalez RR, Barber N, Al-Hathal N, Al-Qaoud T, Trinh QD, Zorn KC (2013) 180 W vs 120 W lithium triborate photoselective vaporization of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a global, multicenter comparative analysis of perioperative treatment parameters. Urology 82(5):1108–1113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.03.059 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shigemura K, Fujisawa M (2018) Current status of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Int J Urol 25(3):206–211.  https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13507 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cho MC, Ha SB, Oh SJ, Kim SW, Paick JS (2015) Change in storage symptoms following laser prostatectomy: comparison between photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). World J Urol 33(8):1173–1180.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1424-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jie Sun
    • 1
    • 2
  • An Shi
    • 2
  • Zhen Tong
    • 2
  • Chenfei Chi
    • 2
  1. 1.ShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of UrologyRenJi Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University Medical SchoolShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations