Retrospective cohort analysis shows improvements in voiding symptoms post prostate vaporization, indicating effective treatment.
Objectives To describe early physiologic deobstruction after contemporary 980‐nm diode‐laser contact vaporization of the prostate (CVP) in patients with evaluable paired preoperative and 3‐month postoperative pressure‐flow studies (PFS). Methods This single‐center retrospective cohort included 94 consecutive men who underwent CVP between March 2023 and August 2025. Paired full PFS was evaluable in 48 patients. Baseline characteristics were compared between patients with and without evaluable paired PFS. Perioperative outcomes, symptom scores, and complications were summarized in the full cohort, whereas paired PFS parameters were analyzed in the paired PFS cohort. Results In the full cohort, IPSS total and voiding scores and QOL improved from 1 month postoperatively, whereas storage symptom improvement was more gradual. OABSS showed transient mild worsening at 1 month, followed by improvement. In the paired PFS cohort, voiding parameters improved markedly, with significant reductions in BOOI, P det Q max , and PVR and increases in Q max and voided volume. In contrast, filling‐phase parameters, including first desire to void, normal desire to void, maximum cystometric capacity, and bladder compliance, showed limited short‐term changes. Postoperative complications occurred in 31/94 patients (33.0%), accounting for 37 events. The most common complications were transient urinary retention and urinary tract infection, each occurring in 12/94 patients (12.8%). Conclusions CVP was associated with substantial early outlet relief on paired PFS, accompanied by improvements in patient‐reported symptoms. Early filling‐phase changes were limited, suggesting that bladder storage recovery may lag behind outlet relief. Prospective comparative studies with longer follow‐up are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kurano et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: