Tag Archive for: vaporization

Posts

Article of the week: A randomized trial comparing bipolar TUVP with GreenLight laser PVP for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction

Every week, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community and a podcast prepared by one of our Resident podcasters; we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, we recommend this one. 

A randomized trial comparing bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight laser (xps‐180watt) photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction: outcomes after 2 years 

Fady K. Ghobrial, Ahmed Shoma, Ahmed M. Elshal, Mahmoud Laymon, Nasr El-Tabey, Adel Nabeeh and Ahmed A. Shokeir

Urology Department, Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

Abstract

Objective

To test the non‐inferiority of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) compared to GreenLight laser (GL) photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for reduction of benign prostatic hyperplasia‐related lower urinary tract symptoms in a randomized trial.

Methods

Eligible patients with prostate volumes of 30–80 mL were randomly allocated to GL‐PVP (n = 58) or bipolar TUVP (n = 61). Non‐inferiority of symptom score (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]) at 24 months was evaluated. All peri‐operative variables were recorded and compared. Urinary (IPSS, maximum urinary flow rate and post‐void residual urine volume) and sexual (International Index of Erectile Function‐15) outcome measures were evaluated at 1, 4, 12 and 24 months. Need for retreatment and complications, change in PSA level and health resources‐related costs of both procedures were recorded and compared.

Results

Baseline and peri‐operative variables were similar in the two groups. At 1, 4, 12 and 24 months, 117, 116, 99 and 96 patients, respectively, were evaluable. Regarding urinary outcome measures, there was no significant difference between the groups. The mean ± sd IPSS at 1 and 2 years was 7.1 ± 3 and 7.9 ± 2.9 (P = 0.8), respectively, after GL‐PVP and 6.3 ± 3.1 and 7.2 ± 2.8, respectively, after bipolar TUVP (P = 0.31). At 24 months, the mean difference in IPSS was 0.7 (95% confidence interval −0.6 to 2.3; P = 0.6). The median (range) postoperative PSA reduction was 64.7 (25–99)% and 65.9 (50–99)% (P = 0.006) after GL‐PVP, and 32.1 (28.6–89.7)% and 39.3 (68.8–90.5)% (P = 0.005) after bipolar TUVP, at 1 and 2 years, respectively. After 2 years, retreatment for recurrent bladder outlet obstruction was reported in eight (13.8%) and 10 (16.4%) patients in the GL‐PVP and bipolar TUVP groups, respectively (P = 0.8). The mean estimated cost per bipolar TUVP procedure was significantly lower than per GL‐PVP procedure after 24 months (P = 0.01).

Conclusions

In terms of symptom control, bipolar TUVP was not inferior to GL‐PVP at 2 years. Durability of the outcome needs to be tracked. The greater cost of GL‐PVP compared with bipolar TUVP is an important concern.

Image courtesy of BJUI Knowledge

Editorial: Vaporization is vaporization, but not at any cost…

The paper by Ghobrial et al. [1] confirms that bipolar electrocautery vaporization is more cost‐effective than GreenLight Laser vaporization, as the two techniques are equally effective but GreenLight vaporization is more costly in the smaller prostates being studied.

Underpinning the analysis was a well‐conducted randomized controlled trial, showing equivalent peri‐operative and postoperative measures with the two procedures and no difference in the primary endpoint of IPSS reduction at 2 years. The two techniques were performed in a similar manner and were equally efficient and safe as expected.

Philosophically, the clinical results are both unsurprising and expected, and confirm the long‐held belief that the energy source employed for vaporization and, for that matter, enucleation, is of secondary concern compared to the skill and dedication of the operator. The technique in either case should result in comparable efficacy, leaving cost‐effectiveness to be an important way to help both urologists and administrators discriminate between them.

Although the costs are not necessarily going to be comparable with those in other jurisdictions, this will apply equally to both treatments and this study therefore represents an excellent attempt to cost both procedures, removing equivalent costs. Importantly, this assessment included the costs of both readmissions and interventions over the full 24‐month period. This captures the bulk of the important complications after these types of procedures and adds to the validity of the findings.

The big difference between the costs of the two treatments being studied is, of course, ‘capital equipment including maintenance’. The single‐use fibre model rather than the cost of the machine has been the mainstay for the profitability of laser companies since the inception of laser prostatectomy. The maintenance contract has been a further cost, which is always underestimated. Reusability of the laser fibres is one way of diminishing per‐procedure costs, but is only consistently possible for Holmium end‐fire fibres [2]. The fact that the authors estimate of these costs was a ‘case share in 5‐year budget plan’ also suggests that the true cost of the use of the GreenLight laser is underestimated.

With the burgeoning number of new techniques and technologies for the treatment of BPH emerging, and new treatment paradigms being proposed, let alone the increasingly negative focus on medical waste [3] and the increasing use of single‐use disposable handpieces/tubing/drapes/fibres, articles such as this are timely. A standardized methodology for assessing the cost‐effectiveness of treatments for BPH is needed and should be an essential part of pivotal studies and therefore the regulatory approval processes.

by Peter Gilling

 

References

  1. Ghobrial FKShoma AElshal AM et al. A randomized trial comparing bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight laser (xps‐180watt) photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction: outcomes after 2 years. BJU Int2020124144– 52
  2. Fraundorfer MRGilling PJKennett KMDunton NGHolmium laser resection of the prostate is more cost effective than transurethral resection of the prostate: results of a randomized prospective study. Urology 200157454– 8
  3. Rose EDModlin DMCiampa MLMangieri CWFaler BJBandera BCEvaluation of operative waste in a military medical center: analysis of operating room cost and waste during surgical cases. Am Surg. 201985717– 20

 

Residents’ podcast: A randomized trial comparing bipolar TUVP with GreenLight laser PVP for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction: outcomes after 2 years

Maria Uloko is a Urology Resident at the University of Minnesota Hospital.

A randomized trial comparing bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight laser (xps‐180watt) photoselective vaporization of the prostate for treatment of small to moderate benign prostatic obstruction: outcomes after 2 years

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To test the non‐inferiority of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) compared to GreenLight laser (GL) photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for reduction of benign prostatic hyperplasia‐related lower urinary tract symptoms in a randomized trial.

Methods

Eligible patients with prostate volumes of 30–80 mL were randomly allocated to GL‐PVP (n = 58) or bipolar TUVP (n = 61). Non‐inferiority of symptom score (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]) at 24 months was evaluated. All peri‐operative variables were recorded and compared. Urinary (IPSS, maximum urinary flow rate and post‐void residual urine volume) and sexual (International Index of Erectile Function‐15) outcome measures were evaluated at 1, 4, 12 and 24 months. Need for retreatment and complications, change in PSA level and health resources‐related costs of both procedures were recorded and compared.

Results

Baseline and peri‐operative variables were similar in the two groups. At 1, 4, 12 and 24 months, 117, 116, 99 and 96 patients, respectively, were evaluable. Regarding urinary outcome measures, there was no significant difference between the groups. The mean ± sd IPSS at 1 and 2 years was 7.1 ± 3 and 7.9 ± 2.9 (P = 0.8), respectively, after GL‐PVP and 6.3 ± 3.1 and 7.2 ± 2.8, respectively, after bipolar TUVP (P = 0.31). At 24 months, the mean difference in IPSS was 0.7 (95% confidence interval −0.6 to 2.3; P = 0.6). The median (range) postoperative PSA reduction was 64.7 (25–99)% and 65.9 (50–99)% (P = 0.006) after GL‐PVP, and 32.1 (28.6–89.7)% and 39.3 (68.8–90.5)% (P = 0.005) after bipolar TUVP, at 1 and 2 years, respectively. After 2 years, retreatment for recurrent bladder outlet obstruction was reported in eight (13.8%) and 10 (16.4%) patients in the GL‐PVP and bipolar TUVP groups, respectively (P = 0.8). The mean estimated cost per bipolar TUVP procedure was significantly lower than per GL‐PVP procedure after 24 months (P = 0.01).

Conclusions

In terms of symptom control, bipolar TUVP was not inferior to GL‐PVP at 2 years. Durability of the outcome needs to be tracked. The greater cost of GL‐PVP compared with bipolar TUVP is an important concern.

 
More podcasts

BJUI Podcasts are available on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262

 

 

Article of the week: Plasma vaporization: the new standard for PCNL tract creation?

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video procedure by Dr Chiang and colleagues showing tract creation using plasma vaporization.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

 

Randomized and prospective trial comparing tract creation using plasma vaporization with balloon dilatation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Po Hui Chiang and Hsin Hao Su

Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

• To evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasma vaporization for tract creation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• In this randomized prospective trial we enrolled 65 patients and assigned each to one of two groups: 33 patients were randomly scheduled to undergo plasma vaporization and 32 were scheduled to undergo balloon dilatation for tract creation.

• A bipolar resectoscope mounted with a plasma vaporization button electrode or a traditional balloon dilator were used to create the nephrostomy tract.

RESULTS

• The mean blood loss, mean length of hospital stay and mean operating time, stone-free rates and postoperative complications in the two groups were compared using the t-test or chi-squared test (Fisher’s exact test).

• The plasma vaporization group had a significantly lower mean (SD) decrease in haematocrit level (3.5 [2.8]% vs 6.6 [3.3]%; P = 0.02) and a shorter mean (SD) hospital stay (2.6 [1.2] days vs 5.3 [3.4] days; P = 0.0).

• There were no significant differences in the operating time, stone-free rate or cases of postoperative fever between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

• The plasma vaporization technique is safe, leads to less blood loss than the other techniques, and is a simple solution for creating the nephrostomy tract for PCNL.

 

Read Previous Articles of the Week

 

Editorial: PCNL tract creation: think plasma vaporization

Surgical planning and access are important factors for successful stone-free outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL); however, PCNL has a high risk of haemorrhagic complications (reported transfusion rates of up to 12%), which curtail surgery and result in suboptimum outcomes. Access to the pelvicalyceal system remains the major risk for bleeding, often associated with an off-set tract, splitting of the infundibulum/pelvis and/or angulated sheath, and requiring inordinate torque. The ideal tract dilatation method is still being debated, with differing reports on operating time and blood loss (Urol Int 2003, BJU Int 2005J Endourol 2008J Endourol 2011).

The present study evaluates a new method for percutaneous renal access, reporting a shorter operating time, a lower drop in haemoglobin levels and a shorter hospital stay, with no patient requiring transfusion. A patient selection bias might exist, which would explain the low complication rate. Also, the vaporization bubbles and the bleeding could result in difficult views, requiring a high level of expertise in plasma vaporization. The authors did not observe peri-nephric space fluid extravasation or dislodging of the single safety wire. Despite the promising outcome, the reproducibility of this technique remains to be seen, but this is a promising account of reducing bleeding and operating times and maintaining better visualization in PCNL.

Joe Philip
Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital, Westbury-on Trym, and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Read the full article

Video: Tract creation using plasma vaporization

Randomized and prospective trial comparing tract creation using plasma vaporization with balloon dilatation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Po Hui Chiang and Hsin Hao Su

Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

• To evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasma vaporization for tract creation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• In this randomized prospective trial we enrolled 65 patients and assigned each to one of two groups: 33 patients were randomly scheduled to undergo plasma vaporization and 32 were scheduled to undergo balloon dilatation for tract creation.

• A bipolar resectoscope mounted with a plasma vaporization button electrode or a traditional balloon dilator were used to create the nephrostomy tract.

RESULTS

• The mean blood loss, mean length of hospital stay and mean operating time, stone-free rates and postoperative complications in the two groups were compared using the t-test or chi-squared test (Fisher’s exact test).

• The plasma vaporization group had a significantly lower mean (SD) decrease in haematocrit level (3.5 [2.8]% vs 6.6 [3.3]%; P = 0.02) and a shorter mean (SD) hospital stay (2.6 [1.2] days vs 5.3 [3.4] days; P = 0.0).

• There were no significant differences in the operating time, stone-free rate or cases of postoperative fever between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

• The plasma vaporization technique is safe, leads to less blood loss than the other techniques, and is a simple solution for creating the nephrostomy tract for PCNL.

 

© 2022 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.