GreenLight HPS laser 120 W vs diode laser 300 W vaporization of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Japanese patients: A prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial

Efficacy and safety of Vibegron for the treatment of residual overactive bladder symptoms after laser vaporization of the prostate: A single-center prospective randomized controlled trial (VAPOR TRIAL)

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Vibegron for the treatment of residual overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms after laser vaporization of the prostate (photo-selective vaporization of the prostate, contact laser vaporization of the prostate, and thulium laser vaporization).

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, parallel-group, single-center superiority trial with a 12-week observation (jRCTs071190040) enrolled male patients with OAB aged 40 years or older who had undergone laser vaporization of the prostate for not less than 12 weeks and not more than 1 year earlier. Patients were allocated to receive Vibegron 50 mg once daily or follow-up without treatment for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were enrolled between January 2020 and March 2023. The median age (interquartile range) was 75.5 (72.5-78.5) years for the Vibegron group and 76.5 (71.0-81.0) years for the control group. The intergroup difference in the mean change (95% confidence interval) in the 24-hour urinary frequency at 12 weeks after randomization was -3.66 (-4.99, -2.33), with a significant decrease for the Vibegron group. The Overactive Bladder Symptom Score, International Prostate Symptom Score, IPSS storage score, and Overactive Bladder Questionnaire score significantly improved for the Vibegron group. Voided volume per micturition also increased for the Vibegron group.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of 50 mg of Vibegron once daily for 12 weeks showed significant improvement compared with follow-up without treatment in bladder storage (OAB) symptoms after laser vaporization of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Network meta-analysis of the treatment safety and efficacy of different energy systems in prostate vaporization

Many clinical trials and meta-analyses have examined vaporization with different energy instruments has been recognized by the American Urological Association (AUA) and the European Association of Urology (EAU) as a promising treatment for benign prostate hyperplasia. However, there is still a lack of evidence for a network comparison between different vaporization devices. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different energy systems for prostate vaporization. Pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed to analyze the outcome regarding surgery time, complications, short-term maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), and long-term Qmax. The Stata software was used for paired meta-analysis. A Bayesian NMA model with ADDIS software was applied to achieve the indirect comparison of different energy systems. Node-splitting analysis and inconsistency factors were used to test inconsistency for closed-loop indirect comparison. Fifteen studies were included in this study, involving three types of energy systems used in prostate vaporization: diode laser (wavelength: 980 nm, power: 200-300 W, mode: continuous), green-light laser (wavelength: 532 nm, power: 80-180 W, mode: continuous), and bipolar plasma vaporization (bipolar electrode, power: 270-280 W, mode: pulsed). In the conventional paired meta-analysis, significantly better short-term efficacy was found in green light laser vaporization, while no significant difference was detected in other parameters. According to the results of the NMA, a greenlight laser is recommended for prostate vaporization rather than the other two systems. When considering operation time, overall complications, short-term Qmax, and long-term Qmax, there were no significant differences among green-light laser vaporization, diode laser vaporization, and bipolar vaporization in BPH treatment. However, according to the probability ranking and benefit-risk analysis results, the green-light laser might be the best energy system for prostate vaporization in BPH treatment.

Endoscopic vaporization of benign prostatic hyperplasia using a contact 980 nm diode laser under antithrombotic therapy: A prospective survey

INTRODUCTION

To prospectively clarify whether endoscopic contact laser vaporization of the prostate (CVP) can be safely performed even in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients treated with CVP were enrolled. Patients were assigned to: (i) the antithrombotic therapy group (n = 21, 38%); or (ii) control group without antithrombotic therapy (n = 34, 62%). All patients in the antithrombotic therapy group continued all antithrombotic agents during the perioperative period and thereafter.

RESULTS

No difference was noted in patient background between the two groups. In primary endpoints, decreases in the postoperative hemoglobin level were remarkable in the antithrombotic therapy group, while no serious effects were noted in either group. The control and antithrombotic therapy groups did not show a significant difference in the occurrence of catheter obstruction due to blood clots or serious hematuria following catheter removal. During follow-up, transurethral coagulation for hemostasis was needed only in the antithrombotic therapy group, with a frequency of transurethral coagulation of up to 14%. In secondary endpoints, no difference in the occurrence of perioperative or late-onset complications after surgery was noted between the two groups. Finally, no difference was noted in improvements in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life score, overactive bladder symptom score, maximum flow rate, or post-voiding residual urine volume between the two groups throughout the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

CVP can be performed safely and effectively in patients undergoing continuous antithrombotic therapy. However, the possibility of secondary bleeding after discharge in a subset of patients, such as those undergoing antithrombotic therapy, may be noted.

A prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of three types of laser vaporization surgeries using a 180-W GreenLight XPS laser, a 300-W diode laser, and a 200-W thulium laser for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of three different laser prostate vaporization surgeries, which were photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), diode laser vaporization (DVP), and thulium laser vaporization (ThuVAP), for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 71 consecutive patients with BPH were included; 23 patients were treated with PVP, 23 with DVP, and 25 with ThuVAP. Patients were evaluated with disease-related symptomatic questionnaires, Quality of Life (QOL) Index, and maximum urinary flow rate (Q_max ) for 12 months. Patients were monitored to record operation/vaporization time, 24-hour hemoglobin/sodium drop, length of catheterization/hospitalization, and perioperative/postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In all three groups, patients showed significant and comparable improvements in symptom scores, QOL Index, and Q_max during the 12-month follow-up period. The mean operation/vaporization time was equivalent across all three groups at 69/23 (PVP), 81/34 (DVP), and 76/32 minutes (ThuVAP), while the applied laser energy was lower for PVP at 157 kJ compared to the other two techniques (DVP at 358 kJ, ThuVAP at 240 kJ). The mean vaporization rates per unit energy were significantly different between the three groups (PVP 0.16, DVP 0.09, and ThuVAP 0.09 mL/kJ). There were no significant differences in the main safety profiles between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that these three types of laser surgeries are similar in terms of complications and outcomes, with excellent hemostasis and high patient satisfaction. It was suggested that sufficient tissue vaporization could be achieved using less energy through PVP surgery.

Comparison of 532-nm GreenLight HPS laser with 980-nm diode laser vaporization of the prostate in treating patients with lower urinary tract symptom secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 532-nm GreenLight HPS laser (PVP) vs 980-nm diode laser vaporization of the prostate (DVP) in treating patients with lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, EMBASE (until Jun 2020), and original references of the included articles were searched. PRISMA checklist was followed. A total of four articles including 521 patients were studied. There was no significant difference in total operating time and lasering time of the two laser surgeries; however, a higher amount of total applied laser energy was delivered with DVP (P < 0.00001). The catheterization time after surgery in the PVP group was significantly longer than that in the DVP group (P = 0.0008), whereas the hospitalization time was significantly shorter than that in the DVP group (P = 0.02). Compared with baseline, there were significant improvements in the voiding variables over the observation period after surgery in both groups. PVP had a significant improvement in total international prostate symptom score (IPSS) (P = 0.0002) and quality of life (QoL) index (P = 0.003) compared with DVP after ≥12 months of postoperative follow-up. For complications after surgery, PVP had a larger number in needing for electrocautery to control bleeding (P = 0.02). Besides, the application of DVP resulted in a higher incidence of bladder neck contracture (P = 0.0007), dysuria (≥1 month) (P = 0.002), transient incontinence (P = 0.003), postoperative recatheterization (P = 0.02), and reoperation (P < 0.0001). The voiding parameters and micturition symptoms of patients with BPH after two kinds of laser surgery were significantly improved. However, PVP was more beneficial than DVP in terms of total IPSS, QoL index, and hospitalization time. Moreover, PVP showed a lower incidence of postoperative adverse events, but a higher risk of postoperative bleeding. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020203222.