Home
Abstract
My Abstract(s)
Login
ePosters
Back
Final Presentation Format
Podium Abstract
Eposter Presentation
Eposter in PDF Format
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
Eposter in Image Format
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
Presentation Date / Time
Submission Status
Submitted
Abstract
Abstract Title
One-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial Comparing Holmium MOSESTM vs. Thulium Fiber Laser Enucleation of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Presentation Type
Podium Abstract
Manuscript Type
Clinical Research
Abstract Category *
Benign Prostate Hyperplasia and Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: Minimally Invasive Surgery
Author's Information
Number of Authors (including submitting/presenting author) *
10
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Country
Canada
Co-author 1
Hazem Elmansy hazem.mansy@rocketmail.com Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Thunder Bay Canada -
Co-author 2
Ahmed Mousa ahmed-kadry@hotmail.co.uk Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Thunder Bay Canada -
Co-author 3
Saud Alhelal drsalhelal@gmail.com Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Thunder Bay Canada -
Co-author 4
Oksana Blahitko oksana.blahitko@tbh.net Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Thunder Bay Canada -
Co-author 5
Ryan Kelly ryan.kelly@tbh.net Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Thunder Bay Canada -
Co-author 6
Amr Hodhod amrwuk@yahoo.co.uk King Abdulaziz Medical City, National Guard Hospitals Affairs Ryadh Saudi Arabia -
Co-author 7
Ruba Abdul Hadi ruba.ahadi@gmail.com Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Thunder Bay Canada -
Co-author 8
Husain Alaradi husainisaalaradi@gmail.com Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Thunder Bay Canada *
Co-author 9
Khaled Alotaibi dr-kf@windowslive.com Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Thunder Bay Canada -
Co-author 10
Ahmed S. Zakaria aszakaria81@yahoo.com Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Thunder Bay Canada -
Co-author 11
Co-author 12
Co-author 13
Co-author 14
Co-author 15
Co-author 16
Co-author 17
Co-author 18
Co-author 19
Co-author 20
Abstract Content
Introduction
We sought to compare intraoperative and one-year postoperative outcomes of patients treated for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with either holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using MOSESTM technology (M-HoLEP) or thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP).
Materials and Methods
We included 104 patients who underwent endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) using either MOSESTM technology or thulium fiber laser (TFL) between June 2022 and January 2024 in this randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients’ preoperative and prostate data were evaluated. Intraoperative data and perioperative outcomes, including hospital admission, perioperative complications, readmission rates, and measures such as IPSS, QoL, flow rate, PVR, PSA, and TRUS-size reduction, were collected and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period.
Results
Of the 104 patients in the study, 52 underwent M-HoLEP, and 52 were managed with ThuFLEP. There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Patients in the M-HoLEP group had a shorter median enucleation time (50 vs. 57.5 minutes, p<0.001) and demonstrated significantly higher enucleation efficiency than the ThuFLEP group (1.97 vs. 1.49 g/min, p<0.001). Furthermore, significant differences were observed in favor of M-HoLEP regarding continuous bladder irrigation (CBI) time, hematuria scale, duration of postoperative hematuria, catheterization time, and length of hospital stay. Approximately 30.8% of ThuFLEP patients were admitted with immediate postoperative hematuria compared to 7.7% in the M-HoLEP group, p=0.003. Postoperative outcomes, including IPSS, QoL, Qmax, PVR, PSA and TRUS-size reduction, were comparable between the two cohorts up to 12 months postoperatively. Two patients (3.8%) from the ThuFLEP group had bladder neck contractures until the final follow-up visit.
Conclusions
Both TFL and MOSESTM technology achieved satisfactory intraoperative and postoperative functional outcomes in EEP. However, MOSESTM technology demonstrated superior results in terms of enucleation time, enucleation efficiency, catheterization time, and hospital stay. M-HoLEP facilitates same-day trial of void (TOV) and reduces the rate of postoperative hospital admissions.
Keywords
Holmium laser, Thulium Fiber Laser, MOSESTM technology, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, BPH, endoscopic enucleation of the prostate, M-HoLEP, ThuFLEP, enucleation efficiency, catheterization time, hospital stay, randomized controlled trial, postoperative hematuria, bladder neck contracture, one-year follow-up, same-day trial of void, IPSS, Qmax, PSA.
Figure 1
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/e6dd7168475797bace329677b1045f5e.png
Figure 1 Caption
Preoperative, operative, and follow-up data
Figure 2
Figure 2 Caption
Figure 3
Figure 3 Caption
Figure 4
Figure 4 Caption
Figure 5
Figure 5 Caption
Character Count
2248
Vimeo Link
Presentation Details
Session
Free Paper Podium(21): BPH & Novel Advances (B)
Date
Aug. 17 (Sun.)
Time
10:42 - 10:48
Presentation Order
3