Does the power of the laser devices matter for a successful HoLEP procedure? A prospective comparative study

Tokatlı, Zafer; Ferhat, Mehmet; İbiş, Muhammed Arif; Sarıyıldız, Gülçin Türkmen; Elhan, Atilla Halil; Sarıca, Kemal

doi:10.1111/ijcp.14531

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Qmax of the low-power group also increased from 9.03 ± 1.91 mL/s preoperatively to 19.71 ± 5.39 mL/s 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05) after combining subgroups. This is like the results of the study by Tokatli et al [29] (7.8 mL/s vs. 28 mL/s, p < 0.001).…”

Section: Postoperative Functional Outcomessupporting

confidence: 91%

Comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of prostate with different power: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yang,

Wang,

Yin

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective is to systematically review the perioperative and prognostic outcome differences between low-power (LP) and high-power (HP) holmium laser enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP). Methods: Up to 2023, we systematically searched English databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, SinoMed, CNKI for related original research literature. Review Manager 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), weight mean differences (WMDs) and standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the fixed-effects or random-effects model. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots. Results: We identified 1026 records in the literature search. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, we finally selected and included 5 studies. This meta-analysis (5 trials) showed that in intraoperative variables, HP HoLEP is superior to LP HoLEP in terms of enucleation efficiency, but there was no significant difference in operative time; there was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, postoperative catheterization time), postoperative incontinence rates, and related complications between the two groups. There was no significant difference in postoperative functional outcomes (IPSS; Qmax; QOL; PVR). Conclusion: Compared to LP HoLEP, HP HoLEP has a certain advantage in terms of enucleation efficiency; there is no significant difference in other aspects; however, LP HoLEP consumes less energy and is more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly. Furthermore, further comparative research is still needed to elevate the level of evidence. Registration: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO(CRD42023445989).

show abstract

Section: Postoperative Functional Outcomessupporting

confidence: 91%

Comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of prostate with different power: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yang,

Wang,

Yin

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Existing low‐power HoLEP standards contain inconsistencies. Rassweiler's study 28 is the first to compare low‐power HoLEP (39.6 W) to standard TURP; however, Shingo Minagawa's study 29 indicates that 30 W low‐power HoLEP is more prevalent in Japan, and two additional studies 30,31 placed the low‐power group at 50 W. Subsequently, a study 32 comprising 845 cases of low‐power HoLEP and a power range of 24 to 50 W concluded that the efficacy of low‐power HoLEP was comparable to that of high‐power HoLEP, which was consistent with previous research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rassweiler's study 28 is the first to compare low-power HoLEP (39.6 W) to standard TURP; however, Shingo Minagawa's study 29 indicates that 30 W low-power HoLEP is more prevalent in Japan, and two additional studies 30,31 placed the low-power group at 50 W.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, the majority of studies comparing high‐power to low‐power HoLEP find no significant difference in enucleation efficiency (EE) and ET 30,31,33,34 . EE may be affected by prostate volume, dense prostate tissue, and the surgeon's experience, according to a recent report 35,36 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, the majority of studies comparing high-power to lowpower HoLEP find no significant difference in enucleation efficiency (EE) and ET. 30,31,33,34 EE may be affected by prostate volume, dense prostate tissue, and the surgeon's experience, according to a recent report. 35,36 The research conducted by Humphreys et al 36 it is hoped that more research will be conducted in the future to discover effective treatments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficiency and clinical outcomes of Moses technology for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: An evidence‐based analysis

Meng

et al. 2022

The Prostate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To compare the safety and clinical efficacy of Moses laser enucleation of the prostate (MoLEP) with those of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang databases, and SinoMed databases. The retrieval period was from the establishment of the database to March 2022. Stata17.0 was used for calculations and statistical analyses. Results This study included 12 articles comprising 1160 patients for meta‐analysis. Compared with those of the HoLEP group, the hemostasis time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −4.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−6.47, −2.84], p < 0.001), enucleation time (WMD = −7.23, 95% CI [−10.67, −3.79], p < 0.001), operative time (WMD = −15.02, 95% CI [−20.50, −9.53], p< 0.001), length of hospital stay (WMD = −15.02, 95% CI [−20.50, −9.53], p< 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = −11.19, 95% CI [−12.94, −9.44], p< 0.001), and total postoperative complications rate (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.32, 0.81], p = 0.004) were shorter in the MoLEP group. Postoperative quality of life (WMD = 0.30, 95% CI [0.00, 0.59], p = 0.047) was lower in the HoLEP group, and there were no statistically significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score, postoperative maximum urinary flow rate, and postoperative residual urine (p > 0.05). Conclusion MoLEP has more advantages than HoLEP in terms of safety, shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer complications. However, this conclusion needs to be verified with a larger sample size, longer follow‐up time, and multicenter randomized controlled trial data.

show abstract

Advances in lasers for the minimally invasive treatment of upper and lower urinary tract conditions: a systematic review

Kronenberg,

Cerrato,

Juliebø-Jones

et al. 2023

World J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does the power of the laser devices matter for a successful HoLEP procedure? A prospective comparative study

Cited by 6 publications

References 19 publications

Comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of prostate with different power: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of perioperative and functional outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of prostate with different power: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficiency and clinical outcomes of Moses technology for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: An evidence‐based analysis

Advances in lasers for the minimally invasive treatment of upper and lower urinary tract conditions: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About