A Comparative Study of the Efficacy of Thulium Fiber Laser Enucleation and Transurethral Resection for Medium- to Large-Size Prostate

• Published in: Urological science Vol. 34; no. 4; pp. 181 - 186
• Main Authors: Mahajan, Abhay, Mahajan, Sumeeta
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd 01.10.2023; Wolters Kluwer Health/LWW
• Subjects: benign prostatic hyperplasia; endoscopic enucleation of the prostate; Equipment and supplies; Fiber optics; Lasers in surgery; thulium fiber laser; transurethral resection of the prostate
• ISSN: 1879-5226; 1879-5234
• DOI: 10.4103/UROS.UROS_92_22

Abstract Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the newer, thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) versus the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for medium- to large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective study between May 2020 and June 2021. Among these, we included patients >50 years of age, with prostate size >80 cc, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >19, and maximum urine flow rate (Q max ) <15 mL/s. All patients underwent either TURP or ThuFLEP. Preoperative parameters such as IPSS score, quality of life (QoL) score, Q max, and residual urine were assessed. Results: Of the total of 101 patients, 29 underwent ThuFLEP and 72 TURP. The mean prostate volume was significantly higher in the ThuFLEP group compared to the TURP ( P = 0.01). The mean operative time was longer for ThuFLEP compared to TURP ( P < 0.0001). No significant difference was noted in the postoperative hematuria ( P = 0.29) and mean postoperative hemoglobin ( P = 0.37). The QoL scores were significantly improved with ThuFLEP than TURP ( P = 0.0006). Compared to a day after catheter removal, the proportion of patients with stress, urge, and total incontinence was significantly reduced at the end of 1 month in the ThuFLEP group ( P < 0.00001); however, it was significantly greater than with TURP ( P < 0.05). At 3 months, no significant difference was found between IPSS ( P = 0.37) and Q max ( P = 0.98) scores between the groups; however, the decrease from baseline was significant for IPSS ( P < 0.0001). The Clavien–Dindo Grade I and II complications were 31% and 13.8%, respectively, for ThuFLEP and 8.3% and 1.4% for TURP. There was no significant difference of patients with late complications. Conclusion: ThuFLEP demonstrated efficacy similar to TURP in medium- to larger-size BPH in terms of IPSS and Q max but had significant improvement in QoL scores. The overall complications with ThuFLEP were higher as compared to TURP.