Comparison of Outcome and Quality of Life Between Thulium Laser (VelaTM XL) Enucleation of Prostate and Bipolar Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate (B-TUEP)

Abstract

Yu-Ting Chen,1,* Chen-Pang Hou,1– 3,* Horng-Heng Juang,1,4 Yu-Hsiang Lin,1,2 Pei-Shan Yang,1,4 Phei-Lang Chang,1 Chien-lun Chen,1 Shu-Chuan Weng,3 Ke-Hung Tsui1,5 1Department of Urology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; 2Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan; 3Health and Management, Yuanpei University of Medical Technology, Hsinchu, Taiwan; 4Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Tao-Yuan, Taipei, Taiwan; 5Department of Urology, Shuang Ho Hospital, TMU Research Center of Urology and Kidney, School of Medicine, College of Medical, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Ke-Hung Tsui, Taiwan Innovative Medical Association, Department of Urology, Shuang Ho Hospital, College of Medical, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, Email [email protected] Shu-Chuan Weng, Department of Healthcare Management, Yuanpei University of Medical Technology, Hsinchu, Taipei, Taiwan, Email [email protected] and Purpose: In this study, we compared patient outcomes between the 120-W thulium laser (Vela™XL) prostate enucleation (ThuLEP) and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (B-TUEP) techniques.Methods: We excluded patients with concomitant prostate cancer and bladder cancer and prospectively analyzed patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) who underwent ThuLEP and B-TUEP from October 2018 to January 2021 in our institution. Patients’ demographics, comorbidities, prostate volumes, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) were recorded. Perioperative outcomes including intraoperative blood loss, prostate resection percentage of the transition zone, postoperative pain score (numeric rating scale, NRS), complications, changes in postoperative uroflowmetry parameters, IPSS, and the rate of reuse of BPH medications were also evaluated.Results: The data of a total of 111 patients (ThuLEP: 49, B-TUEP: 62) met the inclusion criteria were collected and analyzed prospectively. Our results revealed no significant differences between ThuLEP and B-TUEP in terms of operation time, prostate tissue enucleated, and days of hospitalization. However, patients in the ThuLEP group reported less pain after surgery than those in the B-TUEP group, and a higher proportion of patients in the B-TUEP group returned to the emergency department due to complications within one month postoperatively, with hematuria being the main cause. No significant differences were observed between the groups in changes in uroflowmetry parameters and IPSS at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively.Conclusion: The efficacy of ThuLEP was comparable to that of B-TUEP in terms of maximal flow rate, voiding volume, IPSS, and quality of life. ThuLEP also had several advantages over B-TUEP, including less blood loss and less postoperative pain. Therefore, ThuLEP can be considered a treatment of choice for BPH/bladder outlet obstruction, specifically for patients with a bleeding tendency and fear of pain.Keywords: prostate, laser, prostatectomy, prostatic hyperplasia, quality

Keywords

• prostate
• laser
• prostatectomy
• prostatic hyperplasia
• quality