GreenLight HPS laser 120 W vs diode laser 300 W vaporization of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Japanese patients: A prospective, single‐center, randomized clinical trial. Issue 1 (9th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kobayashi, Takeshi; Seki, Narihito; Song, Yoo H.; Dejima, Takashi
• Is Part Of: LUTS. Volume 13:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: 31
• Page End: 37
• Publication Date: 2020-06-09
• Subjects: benign prostatic hyperplasia -- CVP -- diode laser -- PVP -- vaporization; Urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urinary Tract Physiological Phenomena -- Periodicals; 616.62
• DOI: 10.1111/luts.12324
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1757-5664

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of laser vaporization with 532 nm GreenLight High Performance System (HPS) laser 120 W (PVP) and 980 nm diode laser 300 W (CVP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a prospective, single‐center, randomized clinical trial. Methods: A total of 153 consecutive patients with symptomatic BPH were included; 79 patients were treated with PVP and 74 with CVP. Patients were assessed preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using the International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life index, peak urinary flow rate, and postvoid residual urine volume. All perioperative and postoperative complications were noted. Results: There were significant and comparable improvements in each of the outcome variables over a follow‐up period of 12 months in both groups. The mean operation/vaporization duration (minutes) was comparable at 74/38 (PVP) and 76/34 (CVP), whereas the mean applied laser energy was significantly higher with CVP than with PVP at 260 vs 195 (kJ), respectively. The mean vaporization rate (mL/min) was not significantly different between the two groups (0.53 PVP vs 0.56 CVP). Immediately after surgery, the rate of recatheterization for urinary retention was significantly higher with CVP than with PVP (17.6% vs 6.8%; P < 0.05). Conclusions: Both laser systems provided comparable improvement in the subjective and objective parameters with excellent hemostatic properties. Although our results suggest that both procedures are useful treatment choices, further follow‐up is needed to draw definitive conclusions regarding the most ideal laser for treating patients with symptomatic BPH.