<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.f3b1fba60ec7970c.css">

Comparison of HoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: a propensity score-matched analysis

dc.contributor.authorAybal, Halil Cagri
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorBarlas, Irfan Safak
dc.contributor.authorDuvarci, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorTuncel, Altug
dc.contributor.authorTunc, Lutfi
dc.date.accessioned2026-11-05T11:06:57Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractPurposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) and Thulium fibre laser enucleation of prostate (ThuFLEP) by performing propensity score matched analysis (PSM).MethodsWe retrospectively analysed the patients who underwent HoLEP (Group 1, n = 696), ThuLEP (Group 2, n = 146) and ThuFLEP (Group 3, n = 193) surgery because of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). A 1:1:1 HoLEP: ThuLEP: ThuFLEP group matching was performed using PSM analysis. Perioperative, postoperative functional outcomes and complications were analysed and compared.ResultsWe observed significant improvement in functional parameters regarding IPSS, Qmax, PVR and quality of life in all groups compared to baseline values at the 1st, 6th and 12th postoperative months. There was no significant difference between different laser types in terms of urge (UUI) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at 1st postoperative month. In all three groups, no patient had postoperative SUI or UUI at 6th and 12th postoperative months. In addition, no significant difference was observed between laser types in terms of postoperative complications.ConclusionHoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP are safe and effective LEP methods with improvement in functional parameters and low complication rates. Similar results in terms of functional outcomes and complications clearly show that these surgeries are alternatives to each other for the patients with BPO. Experts' opinions, practices and enucleation techniques should also be taken into consideration when choosing a laser for BPO surgery.
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.pages374
dc.description.volume42
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00345-024-05082-2
dc.identifier.issn0724-4983
dc.identifier.issn1433-8726
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05082-2
dc.identifier.urihttps://openaccess.acibadem.edu.tr/handle/11443/11403
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001250269700005
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSPRINGER
dc.relation.hasversion10.1007/s00345-024-05082-2
dc.relation.ispartofWORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
dc.subjectBenign prostatic obstruction
dc.subjectHoLEP
dc.subjectLaser enucleation
dc.subjectPropensity matching
dc.subjectThuLEP
dc.subjectThuFLEP
dc.subjectTHULIUM LASER ENUCLEATION
dc.subjectHOLMIUM LASER
dc.subjectPROSTATECTOMY
dc.subjectCOMPLICATIONS
dc.subjectUrology & Nephrology
dc.titleComparison of HoLEP, ThuLEP and ThuFLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: a propensity score-matched analysis
dc.typeArticle
oaire.citation.editionScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)
oaire.citation.issue1
oaire.citation.volume42
person.identifier.orcid0000-0003-3774-9982
person.identifier.orcid0000-0001-9123-6139
person.identifier.ridOLP-9236-2025
person.identifier.ridABY-1590-2022
person.identifier.ridABB-1529-2020
person.identifier.ridADB-4241-2022
person.identifier.ridABT-8928-2022

Files

Collections