Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 3, 2026
Photoselective Vaporesection of the Prostate via an End-firing Lithium Triborate Crystal Laser
Published on: May 9, 2018
"Laser vaporization of the prostate: A comparative study between ejaculatory preserving and non-ejaculatory
Ahmed Emam1, Kirolos Nabil Habib1, Khaled Teama1
1Faculty of Medicine, Urology Department, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Introduction And Objectives:
Laser vaporization techniques have emerged as a prominent alternative to transurethral prostate resection in managing benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This study focuses on assessing the effectiveness of the ejaculatory preserving laser vaporization of the prostate technique compared to the conventional non-ejaculatory approach in managing BPO.
Patients And Methods:
Our study was performed between August 2022 and September 2023. The study included 120 patients with bladder outlet obstruction, due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the first underwent conventional non-ejaculatory preserving laser vaporization of the prostate (n = 80), while the second group underwent the innovative ejaculatory preserving laser vaporization technique using diode laser (n = 40). We assessed baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximal flow rate (Qmax), post voiding residual urine volume (PVRU), semen volume (semen analysis). Parameters were re-evaluated 3 months post-surgery and the change in sexual satisfaction was evaluated using a scale from 1 (much less satisfied) to 5 (much more satisfied) in response to a question.
Results:
The mean age (±SD) of participants was 59.6 (±7.9) and 57.6 (±7.8) for the non-ejaculatory preserving and ejaculatory preserving groups, respectively, with no statistical difference between groups. Both groups showed significant reduction in IPSS (p < 0.001), improvement in Qmax (p < 0.001), and decline in PVRU (p < 0.001), postoperatively. However, the ejaculatory preserving technique led to a significant improvement in antegrade ejaculation, postoperative semen volume and sexual satisfaction compared to the non-ejaculatory preserving technique (p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
The ejaculatory preserving technique effectively preserved antegrade ejaculation, semen volume and sexual satisfaction compared to the non-ejaculatory preserving technique. However, the later yielded better outcomes in terms of IPSS and urine flow. Both techniques demonstrated significant improvements across all parameters compared to baseline. Further research with extended follow-up periods is needed to fully understand the long-term postoperative effects with this technique.
