Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Comparison of patients undergoing laser vaporization of the prostate versus TURP using the ACS-NSQIP database

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 18, pages 18–24 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The introduction of laser therapies for the management of bladder outlet obstruction in men with BPH has challenged the gold standard treatment, TURP. We sought to compare the changing clinical characteristics of patients undergoing TURP and laser vaporization of the prostate (LVP) over time.

METHODS:

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried for men who underwent TURP and LVP from 2007 to 2012. Patient demographics, clinical and intraoperative characteristics and 30-day postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS:

In all, 12 645 men met inclusion criteria, of whom 65% underwent TURP and 35% underwent LVP. Overall, men undergoing TURP were more likely to be scheduled as an emergency (3% vs 1%, P<0.001), have shorter operative times (53 vs 56 min, P<0.001), longer hospital stays (2.4 vs 1.0 days, P<0.001), more frequent blood transfusions (2.1% vs 0.6%, P<0.001) and more postoperative complications including: pneumonia (0.5% vs 0.3%, P=0.02), septic shock (0.3% vs 0.1%, P=0.045), and reoperation within 30 days (2.2% vs 1.4%, P=0.06). However, between 2007 and 2012, there was a significant trend for men undergoing TURP to have increased functional independence (93–96%, P<0.01) and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Physical Class I categorization (0.6–5.1%, P<0.001). In contrast, over the same time period, there was a trend for men undergoing LVP to be significantly older (71–73 years, P<0.001) and have an increased hospital stay (0.50 days to 1.30 days, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS:

Statistically significant differences in clinical characteristics of patients undergoing TURP and LVP have historically existed. However, since 2007, the characteristics of patients undergoing LVP and TURP have changed significantly. Further studies are required to compare these patient characteristics with specific urologic variables and to evaluate clinically significant changes in these cohorts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wei JT, Calhoun E, Jacobsen SJ . Urologic diseases in America Project: benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2008; 179: S75–S80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang X, Geng J, Zheng J, Peng B, Che J, Liang C et al. Photoselective vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. J Endourol 2012; 26: 1109–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gravas S, Bachmann A, Reich O, Roehrborn CG, Gilling PJ, De La Rosette J et al. Critical review of lasers in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). BJU Int 2011; 107: 1030–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Costello AJ, Bowsher WG, Bolton DM, Braslis KG, Burt J . Laser ablation of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy. Br J Urol 1992; 69: 603–608.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hai MA, Malek RS . Photoselective vaporization of the prostate: initial experience with a new 80 W KTP laser for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Endourol Endourol Soc 2003; 17: 93–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Teng J, Zhang D, Li Y, Zhu X, Teng JF, Wang K et al. Photoselective vaporization with the green light laser vs transurethral resection of the prostate for treating benign prostate hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2013; 111: 312–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ruszat R, Wyler S, Forster T, Reich O, Stief CG, Gasser TC et al. Bladder outlet obstruction: safety and effectiveness of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) in patients on ongoing oral anticoagulation. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 1031–1041.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Yu X, Elliott SP, Wilt TJ, McBean AM . Practice patterns in benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical therapy: the dramatic increase in minimally invasive technologies. J Urol 2008; 180: 241–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Anon: Home | ACS NSQIPACS NSQIP | Surgical Quality Improvement. Available at: http://site.acsnsqip.org/, accessed 1 May 2014.

  10. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA . Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 613–619.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schroeck FR, Hollingsworth JM, Kaufman SR, Hollenbeck BK, Wei JT . Population based trends in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2012; 188: 1837–1841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Strope SA, Yang L, Nepple KG, Andriole GL, Owens PL . Population based comparative effectiveness of transurethral resection of the prostate and laser therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2012; 187: 1341–1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thangasamy IA, Chalasani V, Bachmann A, Woo HH . 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. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bachmann A, Tubaro A, Barber N, d'Ancona F, Muir GWitzsch U . 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cornu J-N, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, de la Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update. Eur Urol 2014; S0302-2838(14): 00538–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tang K, Xu Z, Xia D, Ma X, Guo X, Guan W et al. Early outcomes of thulium laser versus transurethral resection of the prostate for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Endourol Endourol Soc 2014; 28: 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Woo HH, Hossack TA . Photoselective vaporization of the prostate with the 120-W lithium triborate laser in men taking coumadin. Urology 2011; 78: 142–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bolton DM, Costello AJ . Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia by transurethral laser ablation in patients treated with warfarin anticoagulation. J Urol 1994; 151: 79–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chung DE, Wysock JS, Lee RK et al. Outcomes and complications after 532 nm laser prostatectomy in anticoagulated patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2011; 186: 977–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Spernat DMG, Hossack TA, Woo HH . Photoselective vaporization of the prostate in men taking clopidogrel. Urol Ann 2011; 3: 93–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study had philanthropic support from the Division of Urology and the John and Carol Walter Center for Urological Health, NorthShore University HealthSystem.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    R D Malik & G S Gerber

  2. NorthShore University Health Systems, Evanston, IL, USA

    C E Wang, B Lapin & B T Helfand

Authors
  1. R D Malik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C E Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B Lapin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G S Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B T Helfand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R D Malik.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malik, R., Wang, C., Lapin, B. et al. Comparison of patients undergoing laser vaporization of the prostate versus TURP using the ACS-NSQIP database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18, 18–24 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.39

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.39

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links