Thulium fiber laser vs. holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: results of a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial

• Published in: World journal of urology Vol. 42; no. 1; p. 49
• Main Authors: Kosiba, Marina, Filzmayer, Maximilian, Welte, Maria N., Hügenell, Leonie, Keller, Anna C., Traumann, Miriam I., Müller, Matthias J., Kluth, Luis A., Mandel, Philipp C., Chun, Felix K.-H., Becker, Andreas
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 20.01.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Coagulation; Enucleation; Hemostasis; Holmium; Humans; Laser Therapy - methods; Lasers; Lasers, Solid-State - therapeutic use; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nephrology; Oncology; Original; Original Article; Prospective Studies; Prostate; Prostate - surgery; Prostatic Hyperplasia - complications; Quality of Life; Statistical analysis; Thulium - therapeutic use; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Retention - surgery; Urology; Soltive; Laser enucleation of the prostate; Thulium fiber laser; ThuFLEP; Holmium laser; HoLEP; Lower urinary tract symptoms
• ISSN: 1433-8726; 0724-4983; 1433-8726
• DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04748-7

Purpose Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) represents the current standard procedure for size-independent surgical therapy of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). With advent of the novel laser technology thulium fiber laser (TFL), we hypothesized that the functional outcome of TFL enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) is non-inferior compared to HoLEP. Methods From October 2021 to October 2022, 150 patients with BPO were recruited for the prospective randomized trial in accordance with CONSORT. Stratified randomization into the arms ThuFLEP ( n  = 74) or HoLEP ( n  = 76) was carried out. The primary endpoint was non-inferior international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) at three months after treatment. Secondary endpoints were rates of complications, peak flow, residual urine and operation times. Results Preoperative characteristics showed no significant differences. Overall IPSS and QoL improved from 21 to 8 and 4 to 1.5, respectively, after three months of follow-up. No statistically significant differences between ThuFLEP and HoLEP were observed regarding median postoperative IPSS (8.5 vs. 7, p  > 0.9), QoL (1 vs. 2, p  = 0.6), residual urine (48 vs. 30ml, p  = 0.065) and peak flow (19 vs. 17ml/s, p  > 0.9). Similarly, safety profile was comparable with no statistically significant differences regarding rate of major complications (5.3 vs. 5.4%, p  = 0.5), laser hemostasis time (3 vs. 2min, p  = 0.2), use of additive electric coagulation (74 vs. 87%, p  = 0.06) or electric coagulation time (8 vs. 8min, p  = 0.4). Conclusions In this prospective, randomized trial ThuFLEP showed non-inferior results compared to HoLEP in terms of functional outcomes measured by IPSS and QoL as primary endpoint. Trial registration number DRKS00032699 (18.09.2023, retrospectively registered).