PD24-03 A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMISED TRIAL COMPARING HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE (HOLEP) TO STANDARD TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE FOR SYMPTOMATIC BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA: TWO-YEAR FOLLOW-UP RESULTS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology II1 Apr 2016PD24-03 A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMISED TRIAL COMPARING HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE (HOLEP) TO STANDARD TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE FOR SYMPTOMATIC BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA: TWO-YEAR FOLLOW-UP RESULTS Yuan yuanhu, Zou xiaofeng, Xiao rihai, Zhang guoxi, Liu folin, and Liao yunfeng Yuan yuanhuYuan yuanhu More articles by this author , Zou xiaofengZou xiaofeng More articles by this author , Xiao rihaiXiao rihai More articles by this author , Zhang guoxiZhang guoxi More articles by this author , Liu folinLiu folin More articles by this author , and Liao yunfengLiao yunfeng More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1768AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Holmium Laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has recently been proved a safe and technically feasible procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, its long-term safety, efficacy, and durability in comparison with the gold-standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) have not yet been reported. We report the 2-yr follow-up results of a prospective, randomised clinical trial comparing HoLEP with standard TURP for symptomatic BPH. METHODS A total of 118 patients with bladder outflow obstruction (BOO) secondary to BPH were prospectively randomised 1:1 into either the HoLEP group or the TURP group. All patients were assessed perioperatively and followed at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 mo postoperatively. The preoperative and postoperative parameters included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) scores, the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire, maximum urinary flow rates (Qmax), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-assessed prostate volume, postvoid residual urine (PVRU) volume, and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. Patient baseline characteristics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were compared. All complications were recorded. RESULTS HoLEP was significantly superior to TURP in terms of the drop in haemoglobin (p < 0.001), intraoperative irrigation volume (p < 0.001), postoperative irrigation volume and time (p < 0.001), recovery room stay (p < 0.001), catheterisation time (p < 0.001), hospital stay (p < 0.001), and resected tissue (p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in operation time and sexual function between the two groups. At 24 mo postoperatively, the HoLEP group had a maintained and statistically significant improvement in IPSS (p < 0.001), QoL (p < 0.001), Qmax (p = 0.012), and TRUS volume (p < 0.001), with urodynamically proven deobstruction (p < 0.001). More extensive clinical trials are required to validate these results. CONCLUSIONS HoLEP is a safe and highly effective technique for relieving BOO. At 2-yr follow-up, the clinical efficacy of HoLEP is durable and compares favourably with TURP. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e512 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Yuan yuanhu More articles by this author Zou xiaofeng More articles by this author Xiao rihai More articles by this author Zhang guoxi More articles by this author Liu folin More articles by this author Liao yunfeng More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...