PD56-07 HOLEP VS MOLEP, FIRST PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL ON 140 PATIENTS

Le résumé fourni par la source

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology III (PD56)1 Apr 2020PD56-07 HOLEP VS MOLEP, FIRST PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL ON 140 PATIENTS Yasser Hussein M.I.*, Fausto Petrelli, Francesca Ceresoli, Raffaella Milesi, Mariangela Bellangino, and Ivano Vavassori Yasser Hussein M.I.*Yasser Hussein M.I.* More articles by this author , Fausto PetrelliFausto Petrelli More articles by this author , Francesca CeresoliFrancesca Ceresoli More articles by this author , Raffaella MilesiRaffaella Milesi More articles by this author , Mariangela BellanginoMariangela Bellangino More articles by this author , and Ivano VavassoriIvano Vavassori More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000966.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: BPH is a common condition in older men.Several techniques use laser energy to resect, enucleate or ablate hyperplastic prostate tissue. Holmium laser is used for HoLEP (H). MoLEP(M) is a usage of HoLEP technique that endorsea modified laser pulse with Moses™ technology (Lumenis®). We did a prospectie randomized trial on H vs.M to expand assess data on safety and efficacy of M enucleation in BPH treatment. METHODS: This is a single-centre trial was a single-centre open-label phase 3 trial, approved by our local committee and conducted in Treviglio (BG), Italy. Patients were men with moderate to severe BPH-associated symptoms refractory or intolerant to medical therapy or with acute or chronic urinary retention and prostate volume of >80 ml, and enroled if they agreed to participate the trial; were excluded if had previous surgery, or suspected for prostate cancer, untreated urinary infection, of neurological bladder or had severe cardiovascular. 140 patients(70/70 H/M) patients were randomized preoperatively in a 1:1 fashion to H-arm or M-arm. All the procedures were performed by a single experienced operator using the traditional 3 lobes technique, the only difference was the use of MOSES™technology in M’s arm. Primary endpoints were the evaluation of the difference in operation time and laser time, The secondary endpoints was safety. Comparisons of means in the paired sample was performedwith a two-tail T-test(α power of 0.05 to observe a 10% difference in time of enucleation). RESULTS: Median age, basal PSA and prostate volume were similar. Mean laser duration was 5 minute shorter in arm B (36.4 vs 31.5 min.; P=.01) There was also a reduced laser fiber consuming (P<.01).Perioperative hemoglobin and hematocrit variations were similar. The hospital stay was the same: 2.7 vs 2.8 days. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demostrate significant that MoLEP outperformed HoLEP in term of laser timing duration due to a 5 minutes shorter laser timing, laser duration was 5 minute shorter in M’s arm and this is primarily due to a brief enucleation time in M’s arm (30.5 vs 27.1 min.; P=.03) maintaining the safety guaranteed by the surgical technique as prooven by similar bleeding, complications and hospital stay. These data provide demonstration that MoLEP is safe and the most effective treatment for BPH and HoLEP with MOSES™ technology can be proposed as the new standard for HoLEP. Source of Funding: none © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e1190-e1190 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Yasser Hussein M.I.* More articles by this author Fausto Petrelli More articles by this author Francesca Ceresoli More articles by this author Raffaella Milesi More articles by this author Mariangela Bellangino More articles by this author Ivano Vavassori More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.