| Autor: |
Bulut EC; Urology Department, School of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Türkiye., Elmas B; Urology Department, School of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Türkiye., Koparal MY; Urology Department, School of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Türkiye., Coşkun Ç; Urology Department, Ağrı Training and Research Hospital, Ağrı 04200, Türkiye., Aydın U; Urology Department, Ağrı Training and Research Hospital, Ağrı 04200, Türkiye., Erten KŞ; Urology Department, School of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Türkiye., Çetin S; Urology Department, School of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Türkiye., Alishov S; Urology Department, Parkhayat Kütahya Hospital, Kütahya 43020, Türkiye., Atan A; Urology Department, School of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Türkiye., Yeşil S; Urology Department, School of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Türkiye., Küpeli B; Urology Department, School of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara 06560, Türkiye. |
| Abstrakt: |
Background and Objectives : In the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), laser enucleation of the prostate is recommended as an alternative to transurethral resection (TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP). The thulium fiber laser, with its superficial penetration depth, can offer a rapid learning process by causing less heat injury and capsule damage. This study compares the first 60 cases of an endourologist performing thulium fiber enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) without a mentor to the results of OP and TURP performed by experienced surgeons. It also identifies the case number at which the operation time for ThuFLEP starts to plateau. Materials and Methods : Between 1 November 2021 and 1 November 2023, the initial 60 ThuFLEP cases of an endourologist with no prior enucleation experience were compared with TURP and OP operations performed by experienced surgeons. Since the first 60 ThuFLEP cases involved 80-120 cc prostates, TURP and OP operations within this size range performed during the same period were included in the study. The groups were assessed for age, preoperative and postoperative prostate volume, PSA levels, the IPSS, the IPSS Quality of Life (QoL), and maximum urinary flow (Q max ). The 60 consecutive ThuFLEP cases were divided into three groups of 20 (Groups 1, 2, and 3) and compared for operation time, IPSS, and Q max . Results : The operation time for TURP was shorter than for ThuFLEP and OP ( p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between ThuFLEP and OP in postoperative Q max and IPSS, while TURP had lower values than the other two methods. For ThuFLEP, the operation time was longer in the first 20 cases but plateaued in groups 2 and 3 ( p < 0.001). Postoperative Q max and IPSS values showed no significant differences among the three ThuFLEP groups ( p > 0.05). Conclusions : For large prostates, ThuFLEP provides better postoperative results than TURP and offers shorter catheterization and hospital stay times than OP. Its short learning curve makes it a preferable method for treating BPH compared to other laser techniques. |
