A prospective analysis of thulium laser enucleation in benign prostatic hyperplasia comparing low- and high-power approaches for prostates exceeding 80 g

Introduction and objectives To compare the perioperative and functional outcomes of low-power and high-power thulium:YAG VapoEnucleation (ThuVEP) of the prostate for the treatment of large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (> 80 ml). Patients and methods A prospective analysis of 80 patients with symptomatic BPO and prostatic enlargement (more than 80 ml) was conducted. They were divided randomly into two groups (40 patients in each group). One group was treated with low-power ThuVEP, and the other group was treated with high-power ThuVEP. All patients were assessed preoperatively and early postoperatively, and 12-month follow-up data were analyzed. The complications were noted and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system. Patients and methods A prospective analysis of 80 patients with symptomatic BPO and prostatic enlargement (more than 80 ml) was conducted. They were divided randomly into two groups (40 patients in each group). One group was treated with low-power ThuVEP, and the other group was treated with high-power ThuVEP. All patients were assessed preoperatively and early postoperatively, and 12-month follow-up data were analyzed. The complications were noted and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system. Results The mean age at surgery was 68 (+/- 6.1) years, and the mean prostate volume was 112 (+/- 20.1) cc, and there were no differences between the groups (p = 0.457). The mean operative time was 88.4 +/- 11.79 min for group A and 93.4 +/- 16.34 min for group B, while the mean enucleation time was 59.68 +/- 7.24 min for group A and 63.13 +/- 10.75 min for group B. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding catheterization time and postoperative stay. The quality of life (QoL), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoiding residual urine (PVR), and prostate volume improved significantly after treatment and were not significantly different between those treated with the different energies. The incidence of complications was low and did not differ between both the groups. Conclusion Low-power ThuVEP is feasible, safe, and effective with comparable results with high-power ThuVEP in the treatment of BPO.