NEAUA Main Site  |  Virtual Portal  |  Past and Future Meetings
New England Section of the American Urological Association

Back to 2020 Abstracts

A Retrospective Comparison of 1470nmDiode Laser Enucleation and Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Sina H.B. Monfared, BS, Annaliese Ionson, MSc, Michael Emmerling, MA, Wesley Pate, MD, Mark H. Katz, MD, David S. Wang, MD, Richard K. Babayan, MD, Shaun E.L. Wason, MD.
Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.

Introduction: One in 12 patients with BPH will require surgical management. TURP is the gold standard, but new technologies may provide similar outcomes with lower complication rates. The 1470nmdiode laser is a novel technology for use in endoscopic laser enucleation of the prostate(DiLEP). There is a paucity of data comparing bipolar TURP to 1470nmDiLEP. We compared procedure efficacy, perioperative outcomes and complication rates between B-TURP and 1470nmDiLEP.
Methods: This is an IRB-approved retrospective review of patients who underwent DiLEP(n:114; November 2016-February 2020) or TURP(n:194; January 2016-December 2018). Patients with history of prostate cancer and/or prior TURP were excluded from analysis. DiLEP was performed by a single surgeon, while TURP was performed by multiple surgeons. Prostate sizing was calculated via transabdominal ultrasound. Patient characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, treatment efficacy(Qmax, PVR) and complications(Clavien-Dindo) were compared. Statistical analyses with STATA were conducted using independent Student's t-tests, Fisher exact test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Results: Patients undergoing DiLEP had significantly larger prostates(92 ml(65.2-115) vs. 65(48-88), p<0.0001) and a greater proportion of median lobes(77% vs.57%, p = 0.01; Table 2). Both groups had significant improvements in Qmax and PVR from baseline at all postoperative time points(1, 3, 6 and 12 months) with no significant difference between groups at any timepoint(Figure 1). DiLEP had a greater percentage of prostate tissue resected(36%(27-47) vs 31%(20-42), p =0.001) and a shorter length of stay (16.9 hours(2.9-25) vs.27.7 hours(24-33), p <0.0001), but had longer operative times (133 minutes(108-157) vs. 54 minutes (39-74), p<0.0001). 53(46%) patients undergoing DiLEP were discharged from the PACU, as compared to none undergoing TURP. Catheterization times were equivalent(24.5 hours (20-64) vs. 22.1 hours(18-67), p=0.13). Postoperative and <30-day complications were similar in both groups(Table 3), however, DiLEP had significantly fewer complications >30 days post procedure and no grade IV complications.
Conclusions: DiLEP and TURP had similar efficacy for relieving obstruction and reducing PVR, however, when compared to TURP, DiLEP had longer operative times, but a lower >30-day complication rate and a greater percentage of prostate resected. In addition, patients undergoing DiLEP had a shorter length of stay and just under half of patients were discharged home from the recovery room. These results support the non-inferiority of DiLEP relative to TURP for the surgical treatment of BPH.

Table 1: Demographic Variables
Age (Mean SD)68.8 8.569.59.70.56a
Race (%)
White75 (39%)57 (50%)
Black75 (39%)34 (30%)
Other/Unknown43 (22%)23 (20%)0.25b
Ethnicity (%)
Hispanic or Latino51 (26%)31 (27%)
Not Hispanic or Latino142 (73%)83 (73%)0.93b
BMI (kg/m2) (Mean SD)27.74.928.24.40.33a
ASA (%)
12 (1%)0 (0%)
273 (38%)52 (46%)
390 (46%)60 (53%)
40 (0%)1 (1%)0.50b
Charlson Co-morbidity Index Median (IQR)0 (0-2)0 (0-2)0.43c
a Unpaired t-test (for normally distributed variables)b Fisher's exact analysis c Wilcoxon rank-sum test (for non-normally distributed variables)

Table 2: Preoperative and Operative Variables
Preoperative (baseline) Variables
Creatinine (Mean SD)
Preoperative PSA (ng/mL) Median (IQR)2.7 (1.2-5.4)4.0 (1.9-5.6)0.05c
Preoperative IPSS (n=54 for TURP, n=84 for LEP) (Mean SD)21.96.422.67.80.49a
Preoperative QoL (n=21 for TURP, n=68 for LEP) (Mean SD)
Preoperative Qmax (cc/sec)8 (5-10)9.2 (6.4 - 12)0.54c
Preoperative PVR (cc) Median (IQR)77 (40.5-200)85.5 (23.5-207)0.70c
Preoperative Prostate size (g) Median (IQR)65 (48-88)92 (65.2-115)<0.0001c
Median Lobe (%)
Yes111 (57%)88 (77%)
No43 (22%)10 (8.8%)0.001b
Preoperative Catheter Use (%)
None141 (73%)78 (68%)
Indwelling Catheter42 (22%)30 (26%)
Daily CIC11 (5.7%)6 (5.2%)0.65b
Operative Outcomes
Operative Time (min) Median (IQR)53 (38-72)133.5 (111-158)<0.0001c
Catheter Removal Time (hours) Median (IQR)22.1 (18-62)24.5 (20-64)0.13c
% Prostate Resected Median (IQR)31 (20-42)36 (27-47)0.001c
Length of Stay (hours) Median (IQR)27.7 (24-33)16.9 (2.9-25)<0.0001c
a Unpaired t-test (for normally distributed variables)b Fisher's exact analysis c Wilcoxon rank-sum test (for non-normally distributed variables)

Table 3: Complications
TURP Complications; % = percentage of total TURP patients (n=194)
Complication Grade OperativeD30D30+ Total n (%)
IAUR (8)Vasovagal episode (3)AUR (5)UTI (3)AUR (5)UTI (4)28 (14%)
IIArrhythmia (1)Blood transfusion (3)Urosepsis (2)Epididymitis (1)Urosepsis (1)8 (4%)
IIIa0Diagnostic Cystoscopy (1)Diagnostic Cystoscopy (4)Urethral Structure LA (3)8 (4%)
IIIb0Clot evacuation GA (1)Urethral Stricture GA (3)TUIBNC (3)Repeat TURP (2)9 (5%)
IVSICU for hyperglycemia (1)SICU for vasovagal (1)MICU for blood transfusion & fulguration (1)SICU for blood loss anemia and clot retention (1)04 (2%)
Total n (%)18 (9%)14 (7%)25 (13%)57 (29%)
DiLEP Complications; % = percentage of total DiLEP patient (n=114)
IFalse Passage (1)AUR (3)AUR (1)UTI (2)AUR (2)9 (8%)
IIUrosepsis (1)Seizure 2/2 UTI (1)Blood transfusion (1)03 (3%)
IIIa00Diagnostic Cystoscopy (1)1 (1%)
IIIbClot evacuation & fulguration (2)0Urethral Stricture GA (1)3 (3%)
Total n (%)7 (6%)5 (4%)4 (4%)16 (14%)
D30 = Post-operative day 30; D30+ = Beyond 30 days post-operation; AUR = acute urinary retention; UTI = urinary tract infection; 2/2 = secondary to; LA = repair under local anesthetic; GA = repair under general anesthetic; TUIBNC = transurethral incision of bladder neck contracture

Back to 2020 Abstracts