Comparison of 80 W versus 120 W 532 nm Laser Prostatectomy for BPH


Purpose: Improvements to photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) have been made over time, particularly with the introduction of higher power systems. Few studies however have compared the performance of these systems to their predecessors. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and perioperative outcomes of 80 W vs. 120 W PVP. Materials and Methods: A series of 267 and 209 consecutive patients underwent 80 W and 120 W PVP, respectively, from September 2001 to May 2009 at Weill Cornell Medical College (GreenLightTM laser system, American Medical Systems, Inc., Minnetonka, MN). Data were collected on patient demographics, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and perioperative parameters. Maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR), and transrectal ultrasound prostate volume were recorded. Statistical analyses were carried out utilizing the Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon and unpaired t tests (SPSS 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Results: Baseline parameters were similar between the two groups except for greater median age (72.8 vs. 69.2 years, p = 0.01) and lower median PSA (2.0 vs. 3.3, p = 0.01) in the 80 W group. Median laser time was longer in the 80W group (85 vs. 51 minutes, p < 0.001) with a higher median energy utilized (253 vs. 210 kJ, p = 0.001). Final IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and PSA were equivalent between the two groups. Conclusions: In our series, PVP was safe and effective. Durable and similar improvements in symptoms and objective parameters were achieved in patients with both 80 W and 120 W laser systems. PVP with the 120 W system, however, provided faster and more efficient vaporization compared to the 80 W system.

Share and Cite:

R. K. Lee, B. Chughtai, D. S. Elterman, L. Kurlander, M. Yip-Bannicq, L. McCormick, S. A. Kaplan and A. E. Te, "Comparison of 80 W versus 120 W 532 nm Laser Prostatectomy for BPH," Open Journal of Urology, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2013, pp. 1-4. doi: 10.4236/oju.2013.31001.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] C. A. Thorpe and D. Neal, “Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia,” The Lancet, Vol. 361, No. 9366, 2003, pp. 1359-1367. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13073-5
[2] C. G. Roehrborn, J. D. McConnell, B. Saltzman, D. Bergner, T. Gray, P. Narayan, T. J. Cook, et al., “Storage (Irritative) and Voiding (Obstructive) Symptoms as Predictors of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Progression and Related Outcomes,” European Urology, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2002, pp. 1-6. doi:10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00210-5
[3] J. Fitzpatrick, “Which Bph Treatment Is the Most Clinically Efficacious and Cost-Effective?” Nature Clinical Practice Urology, Vol. 4, No. 7, 2007, pp. 358-359. doi:10.1038/ncpuro0806
[4] W. K. Mebust, “Transurethral Prostatectomy,” Urologic Clinics of North America, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1990, pp. 575-585.
[5] W. K. Mebust, H. L. Holtgrewe, A. T. Cockett and P. C. Peters, “Transurethral Prostatectomy: Immediate and Post-Operative Complications. A Cooperative Study of 13 Participating Institutions Evaluating 3885 Patients. 1989,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 167, No. 2, Pt. 2, 2002, pp. 999-1003.
[6] J. Rassweiler, D. Teber, R. Kunt and R. Hofmann, “Complications of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (Turp)—Incidence, Management, and Prevention,” European Urology, Vol. 50, No. 5, 2006, pp. 969-979.
[7] A. Carter, H. Sells, M. Speakman, P. Ewings, P. O’Boyle and R. MacDonagh, “Quality of Life Changes Following Ktp/Nd: Yag Laser Treatment of the Prostate and Turp,” European Urology, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1999, pp. 92-98. doi:10.1159/000067977
[8] M. A. Hai and R. S. Malek, “Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate: Initial Experience with a New 80 W Ktp Laser for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia,” Journal of Endourology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003, pp. 93-96. doi:10.1089/08927790360587414
[9] R. S. Malek, D. M. Barrett and R. S. Kuntzman, “High-Power Potassium-Titanyl-Phosphate (Ktp/532) Laser Vaporization Prostatectomy: 24 Hours Later,” Urology, Vol. 51, No. 2, 1998, pp. 254-256. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00613-4
[10] O. Reich, M. S. Michel, P. Schneede, B. Liedl and A. Hofstetter, “Durability of Probes for Interstitial Laser Coagulation: Impact of Power Setting and Probe Design,” Journal of Endourology, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2004, pp. 299-302. doi:10.1089/089277904773582930
[11] R. Ruszat, M. Seitz, S. F. Wyler, C. Abe, M. Rieken, O. Reich, T. C. Gasser and A. Bachmann, “Greenlight Laser Vaporization of the Prostate: Single-Center Experience and Long-Term Results after 500 Procedures,” European Urology, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2008, pp. 893-901. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.04.053
[12] A. E. Te, T. R. Malloy, B. S. Stein, J. C. Ulchaker, U. O. Nseyo, M. A. Hai and R. S. Malek, “Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 12-Month Results from the First United States Multicenter Prospective Trial,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 172, No. 4, Pt. 1, 2004, pp. 1404-1408.
[13] S. A. Ahyai, P. Gilling, S. A. Kaplan, R. M. Kuntz, S. Madersbacher, F. Montorsi, M. J. Speakman and C. G. Stief, “Meta-Analysis of Functional Outcomes and Complications Following Transurethral Procedures for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Resulting from Benign Prostatic Enlargement,” European Urology, Vol. 58, No. 3, 2010, pp. 384-397. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.005
[14] N. Burke, J. P. Whelan, L. Goeree, R. B. Hopkins, K. Campbell, R. Goeree and J. E. Tarride, “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate Versus Minimally Invasive Procedures for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Obstruction,” Urology, Vol. 75, No. 5, 2010, pp. 1015-1022. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.08.015
[15] I. A. Thangasamy, V. Chalasani, A. Bachmann and H. H. Woo, “Photoselective Vaporisation of the Prostate Using 80-W and 120-W Laser versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis from 2002 to 2012,” European Urology, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2012, pp. 315-323. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.051
[16] P. A. Clavien and S. M. Strasberg, “Severity Grading of Surgical Complications,” Annals of Surgery, Vol. 250, No. 2, 2009, pp. 197-198. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b6dcab
[17] E. Heinrich, G. Wendt-Nordahl, P. Honeck, P. Alken, T. Knoll, M. S. Michel and A. Hacker, “120 W Lithium Triborate Laser for Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate: Comparison with 80 W Potassium-Titanyl-Phosphate Laser in an Ex-Vivo Model,” Journal of Endourology, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2010, pp. 75-79. doi:10.1089/end.2009.0051
[18] P. Geavlete, G. Nita and B. Geavlete, “Initial Romanian Experience with Green Light Hps 120 W Laser in Bph,” Journal of Medicine and Life, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2008, pp. 454-460.
[19] E. Liatsikos, I. Kyriazis, P. Kallidonis, G. Sakellaropoulos and N. Maniadakis, “Photoselective Greenlight Laser Vaporization versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Greece: A Comparative Cost Analysis,” Journal of Endourology, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2012, pp. 168-173. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0089
[20] M. Spaliviero, M. Araki, J. B. Page and C. Wong, “Catheter-Free 120w Lithium Triborate (Lbo) Laser Photoselective Vaporization Prostatectomy (Pvp) for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (Bph),” Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 8, 2008, pp. 529-534. doi:10.1002/lsm.20678
[21] A. Al-Ansari, N. Younes, V. P. Sampige, K. Al-Rumaihi, A. Ghafouri, T. Gul and A. A. Shokeir, “Greenlight Hps 120-W Laser Vaporization Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Randomized Clinical Trial with Midterm Follow-Up,” European Urology, Vol. 58, No. 3, 2010, pp. 349-355. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.05.026
[22] B. Lukacs, J. Loeffler, F. Bruyere, P. Blanchet, A. Gelet, P. Coloby, A. De la Taille, et al., “Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate with Greenlight 120-W Laser Compared with Monopolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial,” European Urology, Vol. 61, No. 6, 2012, pp. 1165-1173. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.052

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.