Davide Perri, Umberto Besana, Federica Mazzoleni, Andrea Pacchetti, Tommaso Calcagnile, Matteo Maltagliati, Daniele Bianchi, Lorenzo Rivolta, Ilaria Ferrari, Flavio Mattuzzi, Eugenio Ventimiglia, Giorgio Bozzini
{"title":"钬:YAG激光前列腺去核术,使用新的网络Ho发生器与磁技术:与钬:YAG前列腺去核术相比,它有什么优势吗?","authors":"Davide Perri, Umberto Besana, Federica Mazzoleni, Andrea Pacchetti, Tommaso Calcagnile, Matteo Maltagliati, Daniele Bianchi, Lorenzo Rivolta, Ilaria Ferrari, Flavio Mattuzzi, Eugenio Ventimiglia, Giorgio Bozzini","doi":"10.1007/s00345-025-05536-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess differences in efficacy and safety between Thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and enucleation performed with the Holmium:YAG Cyber Ho laser generator (HoLEP) with Magneto technology (Quanta System®).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with surgical indication for benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent ThuLEP using Cyber TM generator (Group A) versus HoLEP using Cyber Ho generator with Magneto technology (Group B). In Group A settings were 100W for enucleation and 35W for coagulation. In Group B early apical detachment and coagulation were performed with energy 1 J and frequency 30 Hz by applying Magneto technology. Enucleation was performed with energy 2 J and frequency 40 Hz by applying Virtual Basket pulse modulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>200 patients were enrolled (100 patients per group). Preoperative features were comparable. Mean prostate size was 78.9 vs. 80.5 ml in Group A vs. B (p = 0.09). Mean operative time was 70.6 vs. 64.3 min (p = 0.13) with mean enucleation time 48.8 vs. 43.7 min (p = 0.21) and morcellation time 21.2 vs. 14.6 min (p = 0.03) in ThuLEP vs. HoLEP group. Micturition improvements were comparable. Postoperative gross haematuria was significantly more frequent after ThuLEP and clots-induced urinary retention occurred in 5.0% of cases, compared to no cases after HoLEP (p = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HoLEP using the Cyber Ho generator with the application of Magneto technology for coagulation seems to provide an haemostatic advantage compared to ThuLEP, suggested by the significantly shorter morcellation time, higher morcellation efficiency and lower rate of postoperative gross haematuria and clots-induced urinary retention. Functional outcomes are comparable.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"43 1","pages":"161"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Holmium: YAG laser enucleation of the prostate using the new cyber Ho generator with magneto technology: does it provide any advantages compared to thulium: YAG prostate enucleation?\",\"authors\":\"Davide Perri, Umberto Besana, Federica Mazzoleni, Andrea Pacchetti, Tommaso Calcagnile, Matteo Maltagliati, Daniele Bianchi, Lorenzo Rivolta, Ilaria Ferrari, Flavio Mattuzzi, Eugenio Ventimiglia, Giorgio Bozzini\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00345-025-05536-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess differences in efficacy and safety between Thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and enucleation performed with the Holmium:YAG Cyber Ho laser generator (HoLEP) with Magneto technology (Quanta System®).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with surgical indication for benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent ThuLEP using Cyber TM generator (Group A) versus HoLEP using Cyber Ho generator with Magneto technology (Group B). In Group A settings were 100W for enucleation and 35W for coagulation. In Group B early apical detachment and coagulation were performed with energy 1 J and frequency 30 Hz by applying Magneto technology. Enucleation was performed with energy 2 J and frequency 40 Hz by applying Virtual Basket pulse modulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>200 patients were enrolled (100 patients per group). Preoperative features were comparable. Mean prostate size was 78.9 vs. 80.5 ml in Group A vs. B (p = 0.09). Mean operative time was 70.6 vs. 64.3 min (p = 0.13) with mean enucleation time 48.8 vs. 43.7 min (p = 0.21) and morcellation time 21.2 vs. 14.6 min (p = 0.03) in ThuLEP vs. HoLEP group. Micturition improvements were comparable. Postoperative gross haematuria was significantly more frequent after ThuLEP and clots-induced urinary retention occurred in 5.0% of cases, compared to no cases after HoLEP (p = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HoLEP using the Cyber Ho generator with the application of Magneto technology for coagulation seems to provide an haemostatic advantage compared to ThuLEP, suggested by the significantly shorter morcellation time, higher morcellation efficiency and lower rate of postoperative gross haematuria and clots-induced urinary retention. Functional outcomes are comparable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05536-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05536-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评估铥:YAG激光前列腺去核术(ThuLEP)与采用磁力技术(quantum System®)的钬:YAG Cyber Ho激光发生器(HoLEP)进行去核术的疗效和安全性差异。方法:有手术指征的良性前列腺增生患者分别采用Cyber TM发生器进行ThuLEP (A组)和Cyber Ho发生器结合Magneto技术进行HoLEP (B组)。A组分别为100W去核和35W凝血。B组采用磁振技术,能量1 J,频率30 Hz进行早期根尖剥离和凝固。采用虚拟篮脉冲调制,能量2 J,频率40 Hz进行去核。结果:入组患者200例(每组100例)。术前特征具有可比性。A组和B组平均前列腺大小分别为78.9和80.5 ml (p = 0.09)。ThuLEP组和HoLEP组的平均手术时间分别为70.6和64.3 min (p = 0.13),平均去核时间分别为48.8和43.7 min (p = 0.21)和21.2和14.6 min (p = 0.03)。排尿的改善是可比性的。术后大体血尿发生率显著高于ThuLEP,血栓性尿潴留发生率为5.0%,而HoLEP无一例(p = 0.02)。结论:与ThuLEP相比,使用Cyber Ho发生器并应用Magneto技术进行凝血的HoLEP似乎具有止血优势,其分块时间明显缩短,分块效率更高,术后总血尿和凝块性尿潴留率更低。功能结果具有可比性。
Holmium: YAG laser enucleation of the prostate using the new cyber Ho generator with magneto technology: does it provide any advantages compared to thulium: YAG prostate enucleation?
Purpose: To assess differences in efficacy and safety between Thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and enucleation performed with the Holmium:YAG Cyber Ho laser generator (HoLEP) with Magneto technology (Quanta System®).
Methods: Patients with surgical indication for benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent ThuLEP using Cyber TM generator (Group A) versus HoLEP using Cyber Ho generator with Magneto technology (Group B). In Group A settings were 100W for enucleation and 35W for coagulation. In Group B early apical detachment and coagulation were performed with energy 1 J and frequency 30 Hz by applying Magneto technology. Enucleation was performed with energy 2 J and frequency 40 Hz by applying Virtual Basket pulse modulation.
Results: 200 patients were enrolled (100 patients per group). Preoperative features were comparable. Mean prostate size was 78.9 vs. 80.5 ml in Group A vs. B (p = 0.09). Mean operative time was 70.6 vs. 64.3 min (p = 0.13) with mean enucleation time 48.8 vs. 43.7 min (p = 0.21) and morcellation time 21.2 vs. 14.6 min (p = 0.03) in ThuLEP vs. HoLEP group. Micturition improvements were comparable. Postoperative gross haematuria was significantly more frequent after ThuLEP and clots-induced urinary retention occurred in 5.0% of cases, compared to no cases after HoLEP (p = 0.02).
Conclusions: HoLEP using the Cyber Ho generator with the application of Magneto technology for coagulation seems to provide an haemostatic advantage compared to ThuLEP, suggested by the significantly shorter morcellation time, higher morcellation efficiency and lower rate of postoperative gross haematuria and clots-induced urinary retention. Functional outcomes are comparable.
期刊介绍:
The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.