Purpose: The study aimed to evaluate progression of GreenLight-XPS 180 W photoselective vaporization of the prostate (GL-XPS) with respect to effectiveness, efficacy, and safety over time at a tertiary referral high volume center. Methods: The retrospective study included 375 men who underwent GL-XPS for symptomatic benign prostate obstruction (BPO) between June 2010 and February 2015. Primary outcome measurements were operation time (OT; min) and effective laser time (LT; min of OT) analyzed with regard to prostatic volume (PV; mL) (group 1 <40 mL up to 4 >80 mL in 20 mL steps) and the year of surgery (2010–2015). Results: The median age was 72 years (range 64–79), the median PV was 58 mL (range 33–98) and the median PV increased from 42 mL in 2012 to 80 mL in 2015. The OT and LT clearly correlated with the PV, being doubled for glands of median 95 mL compared to median 30 mL while the applied laser energy per LT likewise steadily increased. Overall, both OT and LT could be significantly reduced each year by 37% (OT; p < 0.05) and 36% (LT; p < 0.05) within 5 years. The hospital stay (days) and catheterization time (days) remained constant, without any changes over time. The overall complication rate (Clavien-Dindo >2) ranged from 36 to 15% between 2010 and 2015. The pre (median 22 + 4) and postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score-Quality of Life (median 5 + 1) showed a sufficient reduction in symptomatic BPO. Conclusion: GL-XPS is a safe and effective surgical method for symptomatic BPO. Our single center experience showed a significant improvement of both OT and effective LT within 5 years whilst maintaining stable low complication rate and high patient satisfaction.

Keywords:
Benigne prostate obstruction, GreenLight-XPS, Photoselective vaporization, Subvesical desobstruction
1.
Roehrborn CG: Benign prostatic hyperplasia: an overview. Rev Urol 2005; 7(suppl 9):S3–S14.
2.
Isaacs JT, Coffey DS: Etiology and disease process of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate Suppl 1989; 2: 33–50.
3.
Barry MJ: Epidemiology and natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Clin North Am 1990; 17: 495–507.
4.
Mebust WK, et al: Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. Cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J Urol 2002; 167: 5–9.
5.
Gravas S, Bach T, Drake M, Gacci M, Gratzke C, Herrmann TRW, Madersbacher S, Mamoulakis C, Tikkinen KAO; Guidelines Associates: Karavitakis M, Malde S, Sakkalis V, Umbach R: Treatment of Non-Neurogenic Male LUTS. https://uroweb.org/guideline/treatment-of-non-neurogenic-male-luts/#5_3 (Stand September 12, 2017)
6.
Bouchier-Hayes DM, et al: A randomized trial of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vs transurethral prostatectomy, with a 1-year follow-up. BJU Int 2010; 105: 964–969.
7.
Bachmann A, et al: 180-W XPS GreenLight laser vaporisation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 6-month safety and efficacy results of a European Multicentre Randomised Trial – the GOLIATH study. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 931–942.
8.
Bachmann A, et al: A European multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing 180 W GreenLight XPS laser vaporization and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: 12-month results of the GOLIATH study. J Urol 2015; 193: 570–578.
9.
Thomas JA, et al: A multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing GreenLight-XPS laser vaporization of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: two-yr outcomes of the GOLIATH Study. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 94–102.
10.
Gilling PJ, et al: Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate: results at 7 years. BJU Int 2012; 109: 408–411.
11.
Hammadeh MY, et al: 5-year outcome of a prospective randomized trial to compare transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate and standard transurethral resection. Urology 2003; 61: 1166–1171.
12.
Goueli R, et al: Efficacy, safety, and durability of 532 nm laser photovaporization of the prostate with GreenLight 180 W XPS in men with acute urinary retention. J Endourol 2017; 31: 1189–1194.
13.
Stone BV, et al: Safety and efficacy of GreenLight XPS laser vapoenucleation in prostates measuring over 150 mL. J Endourol 2016; 30: 906–912.
14.
Brunken C, Seitz C, Woo HH: A systematic review of experience of 180-W XPS GreenLight laser vaporisation of the prostate in 1640 men. BJU Int 2015; 116: 531–537.
15.
Torz C, Poletajew S, Radziszewski P: A prospective, randomized trial comparing the use of KTP (GreenLight) laser versus electroresection-supplemented laser in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cent European J Urol 2016; 69: 391–395.
16.
Lebdai S, et al: Prostate-specific antigen ­evolution after photoselective vaporization of the prostate. J Endourol 2014; 28: 347–352.
17.
Rieken M, et al: The effect of increased maximum power output on perioperative and early postoperative outcome in photoselective vaporization of the prostate. Lasers Surg Med 2013; 45: 28–33.
18.
Valdivieso R, et al: Assessment of energy density usage during 180W lithium triborate laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Is there an optimum amount of kilo-Joules per gram of prostate? BJU Int 2016; 118: 633–640.
19.
Misrai V, et al: Assessment of the learning curves for photoselective vaporization of the prostate using GreenLight 180-Watt-XPS laser therapy: defining the intra-operative parameters within a prospective cohort. World J Urol 2014; 32: 539–544.
20.
Seki N, et al: Evaluation of the learning curve for photoselective vaporization of the prostate over the course of 74 cases. J Endourol 2008; 22: 1731–1735.
21.
Zhou J, et al: 180W-LBO GreenLight XPS laser vaporization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: our experience with current markers of surgical proficiency for durable and reproducible outcomes. Can J Urol 2017; 24: 8922–8931.
22.
Knapp GL, Chalasani V, Woo HH: Perioperative adverse events in patients on continued anticoagulation undergoing photoselective vaporisation of the prostate with the 180-W Greenlight lithium triborate laser. BJU Int 2017; 119(suppl 5):33–38.
23.
Rajih E, et al: Evaluation of surgical outcomes with photoselective GreenLight XPS laser vaporization of the prostate in high medical risk men with benign prostatic enlargement: a multicenter study. J Endourol 2017; 31: 686–693.
24.
Eken A, et al: Photoselective vaporization of the prostate using 120 W high performance system: a prospective evaluation of results over 2 years. Photomed Laser Surg 2017; 35: 300–304.
25.
Cindolo L, et al: Standard vs. anatomical 180-W GreenLight laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate: a propensity score analysis. World J Urol 2018; 36: 91–97.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.