Safety, efficacy and outcomes of the new GreenLight XPS 180W laser system compared to the GreenLight HPS 120W system for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in a prospective nonrandomized single-centre study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2263Keywords:
prostatic hyperplasia, prostate, laser therapy, GreenLight, photoselective vaporisationAbstract
Introduction: We compare and evaluate the safety, efficacy, and short-term outcomes of the new GreenLight XPS 180W (GL-XPS) laser system with the former generation GreenLight HPS 120W (GL-HPS) system for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a prospective nonrandomized single-centre study.
Methods: From May 2012 to June 2013, 161 consecutive patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to BPH were included: 88 patients were treated with the GL-HPS system and 73 were treated with the GL-XPS system. The perioperative variables International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), and maximum flow rate (Qmax) were recorded at baseline, at one month and 6 months. Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was assessed at baseline.
Results: The mean age was 70.2 years in the GL-HPS group and 68.6 years in the GL-XPS group. Prostate volumes were 62.3 mL and 61.3 mL, respectively. Both groups showed significant postoperative improvement in the IPSS, QOL, Qmax variables compared to baseline levels. There were no significant differences in improvement in IPSS and QOL between groups. However, both operating and catheterization times were shorter in patients in the GL-XPS group. The overall postoperative complication rate was similar in both groups.
Conclusion: Both GreenLight systems provide safe, effective tissue vaporization with significant clinical relief of BPH obstruction. The GL-XPS system appears more favourable with regard to reduced operating and hospitalization time, suggesting more cost-effective and efficient tissue removal.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.
