Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Introduction: Endoscopic anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEAP) with lasers has emerged as an effective and less invasive surgical option compared to traditional methods. Among the various available laser options, Holmium laser and Thulium Fiber laser have stood out as two prominent approaches for performing endoscopic prostate enucleation. These technologies have 3 showcased their effectiveness in ablating prostatic tissue and improving urinary symptoms. Nevertheless, differences in their physical properties and modes of action may impact their success rates and clinical outcomes. In our institution it is standard practice to use one laser or the other according to their availability in the operating room.
Primary Objective: To demonstrate the superiority of MoLEP over ThuFLEP in terms of enucleation efficiency.
Secondary Objectives: a) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of perioperative bleeding.
b) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of postoperative hospital stay.
c) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of ThuFLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of perioperative complications.
d) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of improvement in urinary symptoms.
e) To demonstrate the non-inferiority of MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP in terms of improvement in flowmetric variables.
Study Type: Prospective, randomized, non-blind, multicentric clinical trial. Intervention: Patients with an indication for surgery for BPH via EEAP with a prostate volume exceeding 80cc will be included in the study on a prospective basis. Surgery will be randomly assigned using MoLEP or ThuFLEP. A qualified surgeon, having completed their learning curve for endoscopic enucleation (more than 50 cases) and possessing experience with both laser types, will perform the surgical procedure.
Surgery and Follow-up Schedule
Scheduled of Visits: Selection Visit, 1-Month Postoperative Visit, 3-Month Follow-up, 6-Month Follow-up, Annual Follow-up Visit (1-3 years).
Sample size calculation was done using the main outcome variable (total surgical time). Previous studies indicate that surgical time for ThuFLEP is 71.6 minutes [8]. The time for MoLEP may be at least 5 minutes less. Accepting an alpha risk of 5% and a beta risk of 20% in a two-tailed test, a total of 120 patients are needed (60 in each study group). A common standard deviation of 9 minutes change is assumed. A loss to follow-up rate of 15% has been estimated.
Randomization between the two surgery groups will be performed using the Efron procedure to balance the groups in terms of the number of subjects. The calculation will be carried out with the !RndSeq macro for SPSS Statistics. It will be conducted centrally by a person independent of the surgeon.
Statistical Analysis: For quantitative variables, measures of central tendency and dispersion will be .provided. Normality tests will be conducted using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For qualitative variables, valid percentages will be shown. Sociodemographic and clinical data, as well as the main study variables, will be compared between study groups using the Student's t-test (Mann-Whitney U test in case of non-normality). Chi-square test or Fisher's test (if any observed frequency is <5) will be used for qualitative variables. A multivariate linear regression model will be constructed to determine variables related to surgical time. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (CI) will be determined. A preliminary study will be conducted on potential confounding and interacting factors. Adjustment will be made for clinically or bibliographically relevant variables. Interaction will be tested using the likelihood ratio test. A significant difference will be accepted in all tests with a p-value <0.05. R Studio statistical package (V2.5.1) will be used for data analysis.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endoscopic Prostate Enucleation Using Moses 2.0 Technology | Active Comparator | Pulse modulation technology in Moses 2.0 applied to Holmium Laser Endoscopic Prostate (MoLEP). |
|
| Endoscopic Prostate Enucleation Using the New Thulium Fiber Laser | Active Comparator | Thulium Fiber laser to endoscopic prostate enucleation (ThuFLEP). |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MoLEP | Procedure | Patients with an indication for surgery for BPH via EEAP with a prostate volume exceeding 80cc will be included in the study on a prospective basis. Surgery will be randomly assigned using MoLEP or ThuFLEP. A qualified surgeon, having completed their learning curve for endoscopic enucleation (more than 50 cases) and possessing experience with both laser types, will perform the surgical procedure. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| SURGICAL TIME | Difference in surgical time between MoLEP and ThuFLEP in prostates larger than 80 cc. | Total time of Surgery procedure |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Perioperative bleeding | Differences in perioperative bleeding between MoLEP and ThuFLEP. Difference in haemoglobin level between preoperative blood test and control blood test postoperatively within 24 hours after surgery). | From date of preoperative blood test to date of control blood test postoperatively within 24 hours after surgery |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
BPH surgery, including:
Obstructive urinary symptoms evaluated through IPSS with a score >7 and QoL > 2 or acute urinary reten on refractory to catheter removal.
Obstructive urinary flow evaluated through uroflowmetry with Qmax< 15 ml/s, obstruction demonstrated by pressure/flow study, prostatic origin haematuria refractory to medical treatment, or acute urinary retention refractory to catheter removal.
Exclusion Criteria:
Males with an indication for BPH surgery through EAEP with a prostatic volume >80cc.
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ivan Schwartzmann Jochamowitz, MD | Contact | 0034934169700 | 4608 | ischwartzm@fundacio-puigvert.es |
| Silvia Mateu, MD | Contact | 0034934169700 | 4602 | smateu@fundacio-puigvert.es |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ivan Schwartzmann Jochamowitz, MD | Fundacio Puigvert | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fundacio Puigvert | Recruiting | Barcelona | BARCELONA | 08025 | Spain |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29430969 | Background | Enikeev D, Glybochko P, Okhunov Z, Alyaev Y, Rapoport L, Tsarichenko D, Enikeev M, Sorokin N, Dymov A, Taratkin M. Retrospective Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes After Monopolar Versus Laser Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate: A Single Center Experience. J Endourol. 2018 May;32(5):417-423. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0898. Epub 2018 Mar 13. | |
| 33813861 |
Not provided
Not provided
A total of two publications with study results will be made, each differing in the follow-up time. A publication of preliminary results will be made when the last patient included in the study has completed the three-month follow-up. A second publication will be made when the last included patient completes two years of follow-up.
The data will be available when the study results are published.
Open
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011470 | Prostatic Hyperplasia |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011469 | Prostatic Diseases |
| D005832 | Genital Diseases, Male |
| D000091662 | Genital Diseases |
| D000091642 | Urogenital Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Patients with an indication for surgery for BPH via EEAP with a prostate volume exceeding 80cc will be included in the study on a prospective basis. Surgery will be randomly assigned using MoLEP or ThuFLEP.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
|
| ThuFLEP | Procedure | Patients with an indication for surgery for BPH via EEAP with a prostate volume exceeding 80cc will be included in the study on a prospective basis. Surgery will be randomly assigned using MoLEP or ThuFLEP. A qualified surgeon, having completed their learning curve for endoscopic enucleation (more than 50 cases) and possessing experience with both laser types, will perform the surgical procedure. |
|
|
| Postoperative hospital stay |
Difference in postoperative hospital stay time between MoLEP and ThuFLEP. Number of days of hospitalization after surgery. Three categories will be recorded: Ambulatory (<16 hours of stay), Less than 24 hours, More than 24 hours (individual length of stay will be recorded). |
| From date and time of end of surgery to date and time of hospital discharge assessed up to 1 month |
| Perioperative complications | Difference in the incidence of perioperative complications between MoLEP and ThuFLEP. All possible complications will be recorded and classified according to the Clavien- Dindo scale from date of surgery to end of study. | From date of surgery to date of the end of follow-up 3 years |
| Urinary symptoms | Difference in improvement of urinary symptoms after MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP. IPSS questionnaire will be performed in all study visits: Changes in total score and quality of life score before and after surgery will be compared between patients undergoing MoLEP and ThuFLEP. | From date of enrollment to date of the end of follow-up 3 years |
| Flowmetric variables maximum flow | Difference in improvement of flowmetric values after MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP. Uroflowmetry will be performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and annual follow-up visits: Changes in maximum flow measured in ml/s before and after surgery will be compared between patients undergoing MoLEP and ThuFLEP. A uroflowmetry will be considered valid if the patient reports that it is representative of their current voiding quality and if it presents a voided volume > 150 ml. | From date of surgery to date of the end of follow-up 3 years |
| Flowmetric variables average flow | Difference in improvement of flowmetric values after MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP. Uroflowmetry will be performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and annual follow-up visits: Changes in average flow measured in ml/s before and after surgery will be compared between patients undergoing MoLEP and ThuFLEP. A uroflowmetry will be considered valid if the patient reports that it is representative of their current voiding quality and if it presents a voided volume > 150 ml. | From date of surgery to date of the end of follow-up 3 years |
| Flowmetric variables post-void residual | Difference in improvement of flowmetric values after MoLEP compared to ThuFLEP. Uroflowmetry will be performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and annual follow-up visits: Changes in post-void residual measured in ml before and after surgery will be compared between patients undergoing MoLEP and ThuFLEP. A uroflowmetry will be considered valid if the patient reports that it is representative of their current voiding quality and if it presents a voided volume > 150 ml. | From date of surgery to date of the end of follow-up 3 years |
| Clinic Hospital of Barcelona | Recruiting | Barcelona | BARCELONA | 08036 | Spain |
|
| Hospital Univesitari de Bellvitge | Recruiting | L'Hospitalet de Llobregat | BARCELONA | 08907 | Spain |
|
| Nottingham CU, Large T, Agarwal DK, Rivera ME, Krambeck AE. Comparison of Newly Optimized Moses Technology vs Standard Holmium:YAG for Endoscopic Laser Enucleation of the Prostate. J Endourol. 2021 Sep;35(9):1393-1399. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0996. Epub 2021 Jul 15. |
| 33052829 | Background | Wani MM, Sriprasad S, Bhat T, Madaan S. Is Thulium laser enucleation of prostate an alternative to Holmium and TURP surgeries - A systematic review? Turk J Urol. 2020 Nov;46(6):419-426. doi: 10.5152/tud.2020.20202. Epub 2020 Oct 9. |
| 9471043 | Background | Fraundorfer MR, Gilling PJ. Holmium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol. 1998;33(1):69-72. doi: 10.1159/000019535. |
| 35775343 | Background | Elmansy H, Hodhod A, Elshafei A, Noureldin YA, Mehrnoush V, Zakaria AS, Hadi RA, Fathy M, Abbas L, Kotb A, Shahrour W. Comparative analysis of MOSESTM technology versus novel thulium fiber laser (TFL) for transurethral enucleation of the prostate: A single-institutional study. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022 Jun 29;94(2):180-185. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2022.2.180. |
| 30816336 | Background | Zhang Y, Yuan P, Ma D, Gao X, Wei C, Liu Z, Li R, Wang S, Liu J, Liu X. Efficacy and safety of enucleation vs. resection of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 Dec;22(4):493-508. doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0135-4. Epub 2019 Feb 28. |
| 31544290 | Background | Enikeev D, Netsch C, Rapoport L, Gazimiev M, Laukhtina E, Snurnitsyna O, Alekseeva T, Becker B, Taratkin M, Glybochko P. Novel thulium fiber laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A prospective comparison with conventional transurethral resection of the prostate. Int J Urol. 2019 Dec;26(12):1138-1143. doi: 10.1111/iju.14115. Epub 2019 Sep 22. |
| D052801 |
| Male Urogenital Diseases |