The efficacy of green light laser prostatectomy in the management of urinary retention due to prostate hyperplasia
- 101 Downloads
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 120 W potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) in the treatment of urinary retention (UR) due to benign prostate hyperplasia in high-risk patients. Forty-six male patients with mean age of 73.78 ± 9.82 years who اhad UR and underwent 120 W KTP laser vaporization of the prostate between January 2015 and June 2017 were included. We evaluated perioperative parameters including serum prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, period of postoperative catheterization, vaporization time, delivered energy, hospitalization period, as well as intraoperative and postoperative complications. In the follow-up protocols, International Prostate Symptom Score and quality-of-life questionnaire (IPPS-QoL) and postvoid residual volume (PVR) were also assessed. The mean follow-up period was 15.57 ± 9.26 (1–42) months. All patients get rid of UR, except 1 patient (2.1%) remained on Foley catheter and standard TURP was done. Mean vaporization time was 8.57 ± 4.19 min, and mean energy delivered was 51.7 ± 29.9 kJ. No intraoperative complications were observed and no blood transfusion was done. The mean postoperative IPSS at the last follow-up was 9.64 ± 6.65 and the QoL score was 1.61 ± 1.31. Green light laser prostatectomy is a safe, simple, and effective procedure for the treatment of UR secondary to BPH in high-risk patients. Short hospitalization, low rate of intra operative and postoperative complications with rapid improvements in the objective, and subjective voiding parameters are important considerations of this procedure.
KeywordsProstate Green light laser BPH
Compliance with ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
The study was retrospective; therefore, no need for informed consent to be obtained from the patients.
- 1.Cantlay A, Ni Raghallaigh H (2015) Benign prostatic hyperplasia. Innov AiT 8(4):238–245Google Scholar
- 2.Bachmann A, Tubaro A, Barber N, d’Ancona F, Muir G, Witzsch U, Grimm MO, Benejam J, Stolzenburg JU, Riddick A, Pahernik S (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):931–942PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, Kuntz RM, Madersbacher S, Montorsi F, Speakman MJ, Stief CG (2010) Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 58(3):384–397PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Thangasamy IA, Chalasani V, Bachmann A, Woo HH (2012) Photoselective vaporisation of the prostate using 80-W and 120-W laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review with meta-analysis from 2002 to 2012. Eur Urol 62(2):315–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Alivizatos G, Skolarikos A, Chalikopoulos D, Papachristou C, Sopilidis O, Dellis A, Kastriotis I, Deliveliotis C (2008) Transurethral photoselective vaporization versus transvesical open enucleation for prostatic adenomas> 80 ml: 12-mo results of a randomized prospective study. Eur Urol 54(2):427–437PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Horasanli K, Silay MS, Altay B, Tanriverdi O, Sarica K, Miroglu C (2008) Photoselective potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for prostates larger than 70 mL: a short-term prospective randomized trial. Urology 71(2):247–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Meskawi M, Hueber PA, Valdivieso R, Bruyere F, Misrai V, Fournier G, Munver R, Sivarajan G, Rutman M, Te AE, Chughtai B (2017) Multicenter international experience of 532 nm-laser photo-vaporization with Greenlight XPS in men with large prostates (prostate volume> 100 cc). World J Urol 35(10):1603–1609PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Bachmann A, Tubaro A, Barber N, d’Ancona F, Muir G, Witzsch U, Grimm MO, Benejam J, Stolzenburg JU, Riddick A, Pahernik S (2015) A European multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing 180 W GreenLight XPS laser vaporization and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 12-month results of the GOLIATH study. J Urol 193(2):570–578PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Valdivieso R, Meyer CP, Hueber PA, Meskawi M, Alenizi AM, Azizi M, Trinh QD, Misrai V, Rutman M, Te AE, Chughtai B (2016) Assessment of energy density usage during 180W lithium triborate laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Is there an optimum amount of kilo-Joules per gram of prostate? BJU Int 118(4):633–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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):964–969PubMedGoogle Scholar