DrillCutTM vs. VersaCutTM prostate tissue morcellation devices after holmium laser enucleation: A prospective, randomized controlled trial
Introduction: We aimed to compare efficacy, safety, and cost of disposables of the DrillCutTM morcellator with the VersaCutTM morcellator after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP).
Methods: After obtaining ethical approval, consecutive patients undergoing HoLEP for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to have their enucleated prostates morcellated by either Karl Storz® DrillCutTM or Lumenis® VersaCutTM morcellators. All procedures were performed by two experienced urologists. Patients’ demographics and perioperative data were recorded. Both morcellators were compared for their safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness.
Results: Eighty-two patients were included in the study (41 per arm). Both groups were comparable in terms of age, preoperative prostate size (114 vs. 112 mL; p>0.05), enucleation time (95.3 vs. 91.7 minutes; p>0.05), and morcellation time (22.6 vs. 17.3 minutes; p>0.05). The DrillCut was associated with significantly lower morcellation rate when compared with the VersaCut (3.6 vs. 4.9 g/min; p= 0.03). In terms of safety, there was no significant difference between both morcellators in complication rates (2.4% vs. 7.3 %; p=0.1). However, there was one case of bladder perforation requiring exploration with the VersaCut. The DrillCut was associated with significantly higher cost of disposables when compared with the VersaCut ($247.5 vs. $160.9; p<0.01).
Conclusions: Despite the small sample size, the DrillCut was associated with lower morcellation rate when compared with the VersaCut. However, this difference may not be clinically significant. Although both morcellators were comparable in their safety, the DrillCut was associated with higher cost of disposables when compared with the VersaCut.
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.