The low power effect on holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP); A comparison between 20W and 37,5W energy regarding apical enucleation efficacy and patient safety
| dc.contributor.author | Gazel, E. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kaya, E. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yalcin, S. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tokas, T. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Aybal, H. C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yilmaz, S. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Aydogan, T. B. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tunc, L. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-11-05T11:02:26Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Introduction. - The Holmium laser has proven to be an invaluable tool for endoscopic prostate enucleation. The proper energy selection, during the different steps of the procedure, has always been a matter of debate. In this work we compare the effectiveness of the Holmium laser, using two different tow-power energy settings, during enucleation and hemostasis (20W and 37.5W). Methods. - One hundred and sixty patients underwent a HoLEP procedure with a 50 Hz and 2J (100W) setting. During enuleation and hemostasis, two different low-power settings were applied (20W vs. 37.5W). In both groups, only the prostatic tissue in the bladder neck and enucteated tissue far away from the apex, were cut with a setting of 50 Hz and 2J (100W). Results. - The mean enucleation efficiency (0.78 vs. 1.2 g/min-p:001) was significantly higher by utilizing 37.5 W energy (group 2). Additionally, the mean enucleation rate (0.64 vs. 0.88%-P:0.001) and laser efficiency (2.07 vs. 2.12 joule/g-P:0.003) were significantly higher in group 2. The enucleation time was significantly shorter (54 vs. 75.5 mins-P:0.002), while the mean catheter removal time (27 vs. 42 hrs-P:0.008) and Hb decrease (0.5 vs. 0.6 g/dl-P:0.019) were significantly lower in group 2. Conclusions. - HoLEP can be performed efficiently with 100 W-37.5 W settings. Enucleation and hemostasis can be performed successfully with 37.5 W, while the use of 100 W during bladder neck dissection shortens the duration of the procedure. (C) 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. | |
| dc.description.issue | 12 | |
| dc.description.pages | 632-638 | |
| dc.description.volume | 30 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.purol.2020.05.009 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1166-7087 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2405-5131 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2020.05.009 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://openaccess.acibadem.edu.tr/handle/11443/10914 | |
| dc.identifier.wos | WOS:000582677400003 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF | |
| dc.relation.hasversion | 10.1016/j.purol.2020.05.009 | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | PROGRES EN UROLOGIE | |
| dc.subject | Holmium laser | |
| dc.subject | HoLEP | |
| dc.subject | BPH | |
| dc.subject | Low-energy | |
| dc.subject | Laser energy | |
| dc.subject | MECHANICAL MORCELLATION | |
| dc.subject | OUTCOMES | |
| dc.subject | Urology & Nephrology | |
| dc.title | The low power effect on holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP); A comparison between 20W and 37,5W energy regarding apical enucleation efficacy and patient safety | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| oaire.citation.edition | Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) | |
| oaire.citation.endPage | 638 | |
| oaire.citation.issue | 12 | |
| oaire.citation.startPage | 632 | |
| oaire.citation.volume | 30 | |
| person.identifier.orcid | 0000-0003-0928-0507 | |
| person.identifier.orcid | 0000-0002-6483-9249 | |
| person.identifier.orcid | 0000-0001-6820-6708 | |
| person.identifier.orcid | 0000-0002-5112-6063 | |
| person.identifier.orcid | 0000-0001-9123-6139 | |
| person.identifier.orcid | 0000-0002-2000-7790 | |
| person.identifier.rid | J-7549-2019 | |
| person.identifier.rid | AAK-9364-2020 | |
| person.identifier.rid | ABT-8928-2022 | |
| person.identifier.rid | L-6663-2014 | |
| person.identifier.rid | P-1153-2016 |
