PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and complications rates after 180-W GreenLight laser (180-W GL laser) standard and anatomical photoselective vaporization (sPVP and aPVP). METHODS: Within a multi-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent sPVP or aPVP to relief BPH symptoms. IPSS, Q max, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were measured at baseline and during the follow-up. PGI-I score as well as early and late complications were recorded at follow-up visits. Log-binomial and multivariable proportional odds regression models were fitted to estimate the effect of aPVP vs. sPVP on PGI-I as well as on early and late complication rates, before and after adjustment for propensity score. RESULTS: 813 patients were included. Of those, the 50.4% underwent aPVP. Patients who underwent aPVP had larger prostate (64 vs. 55 mL, p < 0.001) and higher baseline PSA levels (3.1 vs. 2.5 ng/mL, p < 0.001). PGI-I score was signaled as very improved, improved, slightly improved, unchanged, or worsened in 55.5, 32.8, 8.3, 2.3, and 1.2% of the cases, respectively, with no differences according the technique used (p = 0.420). Acute urinary retention occurred in 9.2 vs. 8.9% of patients after aPVP vs. sPVP (p = 0.872). All models failed to find differences in: patients' satisfaction (OR 1.19, p = 0.256), early complications (RR 0.93, p = 0.387), early urge/incontinence symptoms (RR 0.97, p = 0.814), and late complications rates (RR 0.70, p = 0.053), after aPVP vs. sPVP. CONCLUSION: Our results showed similar functional results and complication rates after aPVP and sPVP. However, aPVP was used in larger prostates. Both techniques guarantee high patient's satisfaction.

Standard vs. anatomical 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate: a propensity score analysis.

Schips L.
2018-01-01

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, safety, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and complications rates after 180-W GreenLight laser (180-W GL laser) standard and anatomical photoselective vaporization (sPVP and aPVP). METHODS: Within a multi-institutional database, we identified patients who underwent sPVP or aPVP to relief BPH symptoms. IPSS, Q max, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were measured at baseline and during the follow-up. PGI-I score as well as early and late complications were recorded at follow-up visits. Log-binomial and multivariable proportional odds regression models were fitted to estimate the effect of aPVP vs. sPVP on PGI-I as well as on early and late complication rates, before and after adjustment for propensity score. RESULTS: 813 patients were included. Of those, the 50.4% underwent aPVP. Patients who underwent aPVP had larger prostate (64 vs. 55 mL, p < 0.001) and higher baseline PSA levels (3.1 vs. 2.5 ng/mL, p < 0.001). PGI-I score was signaled as very improved, improved, slightly improved, unchanged, or worsened in 55.5, 32.8, 8.3, 2.3, and 1.2% of the cases, respectively, with no differences according the technique used (p = 0.420). Acute urinary retention occurred in 9.2 vs. 8.9% of patients after aPVP vs. sPVP (p = 0.872). All models failed to find differences in: patients' satisfaction (OR 1.19, p = 0.256), early complications (RR 0.93, p = 0.387), early urge/incontinence symptoms (RR 0.97, p = 0.814), and late complications rates (RR 0.70, p = 0.053), after aPVP vs. sPVP. CONCLUSION: Our results showed similar functional results and complication rates after aPVP and sPVP. However, aPVP was used in larger prostates. Both techniques guarantee high patient's satisfaction.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Cindolo2018_Article_StandardVsAnatomical180-WGreen.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: Original Article
Tipologia: PDF editoriale
Dimensione 639.39 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
639.39 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11564/683130
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 9
social impact