Mp62-14 Thulium Fiber Laser (Tfl) Versus Holmium Moses™ Laser Enucleation of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (Bph): A Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology IV (MP62)1 May 2024MP62-14 THULIUM FIBER LASER (TFL) VERSUS HOLMIUM MOSES™ LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE FOR THE TREATMENT OF BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA (BPH): A RANDOMIZED PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL TRIAL Hazem Elmansy, Moustafa Fathy, Amr Hodhod, Abdalla Bazazo, Husain Alaradi, Saud Alhelal, Loay Abbas, Ahmed S. Zakaria, Ahmed Kotb, and Walid Shahrour Hazem ElmansyHazem Elmansy , Moustafa FathyMoustafa Fathy , Amr HodhodAmr Hodhod , Abdalla BazazoAbdalla Bazazo , Husain AlaradiHusain Alaradi , Saud AlhelalSaud Alhelal , Loay AbbasLoay Abbas , Ahmed S. ZakariaAhmed S. Zakaria , Ahmed KotbAhmed Kotb , and Walid ShahrourWalid Shahrour View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008904.63948.3b.14AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with MOSESTM technology (M-HoLEP) versus thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (THuFLEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: In this ongoing randomized controlled trial (RCT), we included 87 patients who underwent endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) using either MOSESTM technology or TFL from June 2022 to September 2023. Patients' preoperative and prostate parameters were assessed. Intraoperative parameters and perioperative outcomes, including admission, perioperative complications, readmission rates, and outcome measures such as IPSS, QoL, flow rate, PVR, PSA, and TRUS-size reduction, were collected and analyzed up to a 6-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Forty-three procedures were performed in the M-HoLEP group, while 44 cases were performed in the ThuFLEP group. No statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics were observed between the two groups. Patients in the M-HoLEP group had a shorter median enucleation time (50 vs. 60 min, p<0.001) and hemostasis time (8 vs. 9 min, p=0.04) as well as a significantly higher enucleation efficiency when compared to those in the ThuFLEP cohort. Additionally, there were significant differences favoring M-HoLEP regarding hematuria scale, CBI time, hematuria time, catheterization time, and hospital stay. Approximately 32% of ThuFLEP patients were admitted with immediate postoperative hematuria compared to 4.7% in the M-HoLEP group, p<0.001. Postoperative outcomes, including IPSS, QoL, Qmax, PVR, PSA and TRUS-sizing reduction, were comparable between the two cohorts up to 6 months postoperative. None of the M-HoLEP patients were readmitted compared to 9.1% of ThuFLEP participants. CONCLUSIONS: Both MOSESTM technology and TFL provided satisfactory functional outcomes in EEP. However, MOSESTM technology demonstrated superior results in terms of the enucleation and hemostasis times, in addition to reducing catheterization time, hospital stay and the rate of postoperative hospital admission. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1026 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Hazem Elmansy More articles by this author Moustafa Fathy More articles by this author Amr Hodhod More articles by this author Abdalla Bazazo More articles by this author Husain Alaradi More articles by this author Saud Alhelal More articles by this author Loay Abbas More articles by this author Ahmed S. Zakaria More articles by this author Ahmed Kotb More articles by this author Walid Shahrour More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...