Comparison of vaporization using 120-W GreenLight laser versus 2-micrometer continuous laser for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia: A 24-month follow-up study of a single center
Affiliations: [a]
Department of Urology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
| [b]
Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolinian, USA
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding authors: Wei Tao, Department of Urology,the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China. Tel.: +86 13382503391; E-mail: [email protected] and Boxin Xue, Department of Urology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China. Tel.: +86 18994392817; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: OBJECTIVE:To evaluate safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of photoselective vaporization of prostate using 120-W HPS GreenLight KTP laser and compare the results with those obtained with 2-micrometer continuous-wave (2 um CW) laser for treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS:One group of 216 patients diagnosed with BPH underwent 120-W KTP laser vaporization of the prostate, while another group of 198 BPH patients underwent 2 um CW laser vaporization. The relevant pre-, peri-, and post-operative parameters were compared between the two therapy groups. Functional results in terms of improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and post-void residual (PVR) urine were assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS:BPH was successfully treated with 120-W HPS KTP laser and 2 um CW laser in all patients. There were no significant difference between two patient groups in the baseline characteristics (such as PSA, IPSS, QoL, and Qmax). No major complications occurred intraoperatively (capsule perforation and TUR syndrome) or postoperatively (electric unbalance), and no blood transfusions were required in both groups. Average catheterization time was 1.9±1.3 days for the 120-W PVP and 2.2±1.9 days for the 2 um CW laser treatment. In addition, the hospitalization times were 3.8±1.2days (120-W PVP) and 4.8±1.5 days (2 um CW laser), respectively. The incidence of dysuria and urge incontinence was higher in the 2 um CW laser group (35/198, 24/198) than in the 120 W PVP group (15/216, 10/216). Dramatic improvement was observed in Qmax, IPSS, Qol, and PVR as compared with the respective pre-operative values. The degree of improvement during the follow-up period was comparable in both groups. No significant differences were observed in terms of re-operation rates, bladder neck stricture, and urethral stricture. CONCLUSIONS:Both 120-W HPS laser and 2 um CW laser vaporization present effective treatment options in patients with BPH, but 120-W PVP provides safer therapy with less post-operative complications within the 2-year follow-up period.
