MP71-15 EVOLUTION OF THE GREENLIGHT™ LASER: A COMPARISON ON ENERGY UTILIZATION AND LASER TIME BETWEEN 80W KTP, 120W LBO AND 180W LBO.

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology II1 Apr 2014MP71-15 EVOLUTION OF THE GREENLIGHT™ LASER: A COMPARISON ON ENERGY UTILIZATION AND LASER TIME BETWEEN 80W KTP, 120W LBO AND 180W LBO. Helen Freeborn and Henry Woo Helen FreebornHelen Freeborn More articles by this author and Henry WooHenry Woo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2174AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Photoselective vaporisation (PVP) of prostate is now a commonly used surgical treatment for Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH) however there is limited literature comparing the energy utilization and laser time as technology has evolved. This is the first study to compare all three consoles of the GreenLight™ laser, 80W KTP, 120W LBO and 180W LBO in these areas. METHODS This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively documented ethics approved database of a PVP procedures performed by a single surgeon in Sydney, Australia over an eight-year period. Total energy (kJ) used and laser times (minutes) were analysed in relation to type of machine used and prostate volume. The mean energy used per gram of prostate volume (as measured by transrectal ultrasound) and the mean laser time for a particular prostate gland volume were compared using the Wilcoxon Two Sample Tests to determine statistical significance. RESULTS A total of 622 patients received PVP, with 99 receiving 80W KTP, 324 120W LBO and 199 180W LBO. The median prostate volume (IQR) was 45 (28.5-62), 53 (37 - 83.33) and 66 (46-94) respectively. The median laser times were 70, 49 and 41 respectively. The mean laser time per gram of prostate tissue was 1.82, 0.94 and 0.75 mins/g and was found to be significantly different when comparing the 80W KTP vs 120W LBO model (p < 0.001), and 80W KTP vs 180W LBO (p < 0.002), whereas there was no statistical difference between the 120W LBO vs 180W LBO. No statistical difference was detected between the three laser models when addressing mean energy utilisation per gram of prostate tissue; 80W KTP vs 120W LBO model (p = 0.09), 120W LBO vs 180W LBO (p = 0.97) and 80W KTP vs 180W LBO (p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS These results suggest improvements in laser technology have resulted in a reduction in laser time and improvements in efficiency but not in energy utilization relative to prostate size. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e795-e796 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Helen Freeborn More articles by this author Henry Woo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...