The investigators hypothesize that the functional outcomes of both techniques are comparable. However, ThuFLEP might increase speed recovery of postoperative irritation and early stress urinary incontinence according to the Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis (QUID) because of minimal tissue penetration depth of TFL.
Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) has already shown the outcomes comparable to OSP with better safety profile (lower blood loss compared to OSP) and shorter hospital stay. TFL has the efficacy and safety proven in comparative trials, being a promising rival for HoLEP. The main features of TFL distinguishing it from Ho:YAG is its wavelength of 1.94 µm (leading to about three-fold increase in water absorption and lesser penetration depth of \<0.1 mm vs \>0.2 mm in Ho:YAG). With identical average and peak powers of 100 W, the laser does not burst tissues, allowing for clean and precise cutting instead. Conversely, Ho:YAG's average power is about 100 W and its presumable peak power is around 10-15 kW. With such an outburst of energy, each pulse of Ho:YAG creates a large vapor bubble which ruptures the tissue. This may be a possible reason for increased irritative symptoms in early postoperative period after HoLEP comparing to ThuFLEP. But all in all, the probable causes for such postoperative symptoms remain unclear so far, despite the fact that absence of irritation and incontinence is ought to be one quality marker of "Pentafecta". According to the idea of high-power impact, probably, decreasing of HoLEP power will mitigate these problems. On the one hand, low-power HoLEP is feasible, safe and effective modality for symptomatic BPO. However, the results remain controversial and there is lack of LP-HoLEP application data nowadays. May be, with another option, for instance OSP or monopolar enucleation, it is possible to solve the issues. But the discussion of the past years demonstrates that the presence of early SUI is not only a problem of EEP, but also underreported in other approaches in relieving BPO secondary to BPH.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
140
enucleation of the BPH according to standard procedure protocol
enucleation of the BPH according to standard procedure protocol
Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University.
Moscow, Russia
severity of urinary incontinence
Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis (higher score means worse incontinence)
Time frame: change from 1 week to 6 months after surgery
rate of intra- and perioperative adverse events
complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification (higher score means more severe complication)
Time frame: 6 months follow up
surgery duration
lengths of the procedure
Time frame: during surgery
hemoglobin drop
decrease of hemoglobin at the first day after surgery comparing to preoperative value
Time frame: 1 day after surgery
catheter stay
lengths of catheterization
Time frame: 1 week after surgery
hospitalization length
duration of staying at hospital after the surgery
Time frame: 1 week after surgery
functional outcomes
IPSS (international prostate symptos score), QoL (quality of life), IIEF-5 (international index of erectile function) questionaries, Qmax
Time frame: change from 3 to 6 months after surgery
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.