Low-Power Vs High-Power Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Critical Assessment through Randomized Trial

• Published in: Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2018-11, Vol.121, p.58-65
• Main Authors: Elshal, Ahmed M., El-Nahas, Ahmed R., Ghazy, Mostafa, Nabeeh, Hossam, Laymon, Mahmoud, Soltan, Mohamed, Ghobrial, Fady K., EL-Kappany, Hamdy A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Dysuria - diagnosis; Dysuria - etiology; Dysuria - psychology; Humans; Laser Therapy - adverse effects; Laser Therapy - instrumentation; Laser Therapy - methods; Lasers, Solid-State - therapeutic use; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications - diagnosis; Postoperative Complications - psychology; Prostate - diagnostic imaging; Prostate - pathology; Prostate - surgery; Prostatic Hyperplasia - diagnosis; Prostatic Hyperplasia - psychology; Prostatic Hyperplasia - surgery; Quality of Life; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological - diagnosis; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological - etiology; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological - psychology; Transurethral Resection of Prostate - adverse effects; Transurethral Resection of Prostate - instrumentation; Transurethral Resection of Prostate - methods; Treatment Outcome; Visual Analog Scale
• ISSN: 0090-4295; 1527-9995
• DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.07.010

To assess the non-inferiority of Low-power Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (LP-HoLEP) to high-power (HP-HoLEP) for enucleation efficiency pertaining to the advantages of lower cost and minimal postoperative dysuria, storage symptoms, and negative sexual impact. HoLEP was performed using 100W Versapulse, Luminis Inc., with 2J/25Hz for LP-HoLEP (61 patients) and 2J/50Hz for HP-HoLEP (60 patients). Two surgeons with different experience performed equal number of both procedures. Non-inferiority of enucleation efficiency (enucleated weight/min) was evaluated. All perioperative parameters were recorded and compared. Dysuria was assessed at 2 weeks by dysuria visual analog scale, urinary (Q.max and IPSS) and sexual (sexual health inventory for men score) outcome measures were evaluated at 1, 4, and 12 months. Baseline and perioperative parameters were comparable between the two groups. Mean enucleation efficiency was 1.42±0.6 vs 1.47±0.6 gm/min, P = .6 following LP-HoLEP and HP-HoLEP, respectively. Patients reported postoperative dysuria similarly in both groups as per dysuria visual analog scale. There was significant comparable improvement in IPSS (international prostate symptom score) and Q.max in both groups at different follow-up points. At one year, median IPSS and Q.max were comparable in both groups (P = .4 and .7 following LP-HoLEP and HP-HoLEP, respectively). Median postoperative reduction in prostate specific antigen was 89% (42:99) following LP-HoLEP vs 81% (62:94) after HP-HoLEP, P = .92. Both groups showed comparable perioperative and late postoperative complications. There were no statistically significant changes in the last follow-up sexual health inventory for men score in comparison to baseline score. LP-HoLEP is non-inferior to HP-HoLEP in terms of all efficiency parameters regardless level of surgeon experience. •LP-HoLEP; Low-power Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate•HP-HoLEP; High-power Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate•LUTS; Lower urinary tract symptoms•BPH; Benign prostate hyperplasia