Efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the Greenlight XPS 180W laser and simple prostatectomy for high-volume prostate hypertrophy: a comparative analysis.
Hubert Burdziak, Tomasz Syryło, Agnieszka Grabińska, Karol Burdziak, Janusz Ławiński, Monika Tomaka, Henryk Zieliński
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the Greenlight XPS 180W laser and simple prostatectomy for high-volume prostate hypertrophy: a comparative analysis.","authors":"Hubert Burdziak, Tomasz Syryło, Agnieszka Grabińska, Karol Burdziak, Janusz Ławiński, Monika Tomaka, Henryk Zieliński","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of treatment using simple prostatectomy (SP) and using photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) with a 180W GreenLight XPS laser in patients with high-volume prostate hypertrophy.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The study included 120 patients with LUTS symptoms caused by prostatic enlargement of more than 80 ml; 79 patients were treated with SP, while 41 were treated with PVP. The analysis included subjective the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QoL), and objective (Qmax), (Qave), and post-void residual volume (PVR) parameters before treatment and at an average of 38 months after surgical treatment. Early and late adverse effects and length of hospitalisation were assessed. Complication reports were performed according to the modified Clavien-Dindo system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis independently showed the effectiveness of both methods. Subjective parameters (IPSS, QoL), showed no significant differences. Patients treated with SP scored slightly better on objective parameters (Qmax, Qave, and PVR). Analysis of adverse effects and hospitalisation time were more favourable after PVP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SP and PVP were found to be comparable and highly effective in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of IPSS and QoL. Patients treated with the SP method obtained slightly better results of objective parameters such as Qmax, Qave, and PVR. Compared with SP, PVP has a more favourable safety profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 1","pages":"64-76"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11032029/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of treatment using simple prostatectomy (SP) and using photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) with a 180W GreenLight XPS laser in patients with high-volume prostate hypertrophy.
Material and methods: The study included 120 patients with LUTS symptoms caused by prostatic enlargement of more than 80 ml; 79 patients were treated with SP, while 41 were treated with PVP. The analysis included subjective the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QoL), and objective (Qmax), (Qave), and post-void residual volume (PVR) parameters before treatment and at an average of 38 months after surgical treatment. Early and late adverse effects and length of hospitalisation were assessed. Complication reports were performed according to the modified Clavien-Dindo system.
Results: The analysis independently showed the effectiveness of both methods. Subjective parameters (IPSS, QoL), showed no significant differences. Patients treated with SP scored slightly better on objective parameters (Qmax, Qave, and PVR). Analysis of adverse effects and hospitalisation time were more favourable after PVP.
Conclusions: SP and PVP were found to be comparable and highly effective in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of IPSS and QoL. Patients treated with the SP method obtained slightly better results of objective parameters such as Qmax, Qave, and PVR. Compared with SP, PVP has a more favourable safety profile.