title: Efficacy and safety of 120-W thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet vapoenucleation of prostates compared with holmium laser enucleation of prostates for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This study compared the efficacy and safety between 120-W thulium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) vapoenucleation of prostates (ThuVEP) and holmium laser enucleation of prostates (HoLEP) for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
  
  
  METHODS
  A retrospective analysis of 88 consecutive patients with symptomatic BPH was carried out, who underwent either 120-W ThuVEP or HoLEP nonrandomly. Patient demographics and peri-operative and 12-month follow-up data were analyzed with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) score, maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), and rates of peri-operative and late complications.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The patients in each group showed no significant difference in preoperative parameters. Compared with the HoLEP group, patients in the 120-W ThuVEP group required significantly shorter time for laser enucleation (58.3 ± 12.8 min vs. 70.5 ± 22.3 min, P = 0.003), and resulted in a significant superiority in laser efficiency (resected prostate weight/laser enucleation time) for 120-W Tm:YAG laser compared to holmium:YAG laser (0.69 ± 0.18 vs. 0.61 ± 0.19, P = 0.048). During 1, 6, and 12 months of follow-ups, the procedures did not demonstrate a significant difference in IPSS, QoL score, Qmax, or PVR (P > 0.05). Mean peri-operative decrease of hemoglobin in the HoLEP group was similar to the ThuVEP group (17.1 ± 12.0 g/L vs. 15.2 ± 10.1 g/L, P = 0.415). Early and late incidences of complications were low and did not differ significantly between the two groups of 120-W ThuVEP and HoLEP patients (P > 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  120-W ThuVEP and HoLEP are potent, safe and efficient modalities of minimally invasive surgeries for patients with LUTS due to BPH. Compared with HoLEP, 120-W ThuVEP offers advantages of reduction of laser enucleation time and improvement of laser efficiency.
authors.forename: Kai
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Hong
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
authors.forename: Yu-Qing
authors.initials: YQ
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Jian
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Lu
authors.forename: Chun-Lei
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Xiao
authors.forename: Yi
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Huang
authors.forename: Lu-Lin
authors.initials: LL
authors.lastname: Ma
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000535:Aluminum / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D053685:Laser Therapy; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011467:Prostate / Q000601:surgery*; D011470:Prostatic Hyperplasia / Q000601:surgery*; D011788:Quality of Life; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013932:Thulium / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D015019:Yttrium / Q000627:therapeutic use*
chemical_list: C503779:yttrium-aluminum-garnet; D015019:Yttrium; D013932:Thulium; D000535:Aluminum
references.citation: Curr Opin Urol. 2009 Jan;19(1):38-43
references.pmid: 19057214
references.citation: World J Urol. 2010 Feb;28(1):39-43
references.pmid: 19669645
references.citation: J Urol. 2010 Mar;183(3):1105-9
references.pmid: 20092844
references.citation: BJU Int. 2010 Aug;106(3):368-72
references.pmid: 19912204
references.citation: Chin Med J (Engl). 2010 Sep;123(17):2370-4
references.pmid: 21034551
references.citation: BJU Int. 2011 Feb;107(3):433-7
references.pmid: 20804474
references.citation: BJU Int. 2011 Apr;107(7):1030-43
references.pmid: 21438974
references.citation: J Urol. 2011 Dec;186(6):2323-7
references.pmid: 22014812
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Feb;61(2):317-25
references.pmid: 22033173
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(3):408-11
references.pmid: 21883820
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Apr;61(4):783-95
references.pmid: 22285403
references.citation: Asian J Androl. 2012 Mar;14(2):325-9
references.pmid: 22231295
references.citation: Urology. 2012 Apr;79(4):869-74
references.pmid: 22342411
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 Jul;110(1):96-101
references.pmid: 22085294
references.citation: Chin Med J (Engl). 2012 May;125(9):1536-41
references.pmid: 22800817
references.citation: Chin Med J (Engl). 2012 Nov;125(21):3778-81
references.pmid: 23106872
references.citation: Chin Med J (Engl). 2012 Nov;125(21):3811-4
references.pmid: 23106879
references.citation: J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):217-22
references.pmid: 23174256
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt C):E845-50
references.pmid: 22702908
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2013 May;63(5):859-67
references.pmid: 23245687
references.citation: World J Urol. 2013 Oct;31(5):1231-8
references.pmid: 22733237
references.citation: Urology. 2014 Jan;83(1):175-80
references.pmid: 24103563
references.citation: World J Urol. 2014 Feb;32(1):165-72
references.pmid: 23657354
references.citation: World J Urol. 2014 Dec;32(6):1551-8
references.pmid: 24531878
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1066-96
references.pmid: 24972732