Diode laser vaporisation of the prostate vs. diode laser under cold irrigation: A randomised control trial

Abstract

Objective To compare the perioperative morbidity and early follow-up after diode laser vaporisation of the prostate (LVP) and its modification, diode laser under cold irrigation (LUCI) in patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia, as the main disadvantages of LVP are the postoperative pain, dysuria and storage urinary symptoms. Patients and methods This was a single-centre prospective randomised control trial in which 100 patients were randomised to receive LVP (50) or LUCI (50) from June 2011 until July 2012. LUCI is similar to LVP except that it is done under normal irrigation with saline at 4 °C instead of saline at room temperature. The primary outcome measures were the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS-Dysuria, a pain scale (PS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), a quality-of-life (QoL) score and the postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) after 1 month, then the IPSS, Qmax, QoL, and PVR at 3 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative surgical variables, e.g., the decline in core temperature, bleeding, peri- and postoperative morbidity. Results The baseline characteristics of both groups were similar. For the primary outcome measures, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups in all variables except Qmax after 1 month, in favour of LUCI. The mean (SD) IPSS at 1 month in the LVP group was 8.97 (1.68), statistically significantly different from that after LUCI, of 6.89 (1.5) (P < 0.05). The mean IPSS-Dysuria at 1 month was also significantly, at -2.32 (0.91) for LVP and 3.54 (1.07) for LUCI (P < 0.05). The respective mean PS at 1 month was 7.84 (2.92) and 5.7 (2.1) (P < 0.05). The QoL and PVR at 1 month were also significantly different. Within the first month 17% of patients in the LVP group and 4% in the LUCI group complained of transient urgency or stress incontinence, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant bleeding in either group. The mean operative time or applied energy of LVP was not statistically significant from that of LUCI, and there was no significant difference in the decline in core temperature between the groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion LUCI is a good modification for reducing the pain, dysuria and storage symptoms associated with LVP. The procedure appears to be safe, with no significant decrease in core temperature in either group.