Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 9, 2026

Photoselective Vaporesection of the Prostate via an End-firing Lithium Triborate Crystal Laser
Published on: May 9, 2018
Feasibility, safety and efficacy of using low-power thulium: YAG laser enucleation of prostate compared to HoLEP in
Samer Morsy1, Mostafa Abdelraouf1, Alaa Meshref1
1Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt.
Introduction:
We aimed to assess and compare the feasibility and perioperative outcomes using low-power thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) compared to standard holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the management of BPO-related symptoms due to prostates volume exceeding 80 ml.
Material And Methods:
One hundred and fifty patients with large prostates indicated for prostate enucleation were prospectively randomized into two groups: HoLEP group (74 patients), and the low-power ThuLEP group (76 patients). Preoperative assessment included digital rectal examination, serum prostate-specific antigen, transrectal ultrasonography, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine (PVR) measurement, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and QoL scoring systems.
Results:
The mean age for the HoLEP group was 68 ±5.0 years and 69 ±4.8 years for the low-power ThuLEP group. The mean prostate volume was 87 ±11.5 cc for HoLEP and 90 ±12.0 cc for ThuLEP, with no statistically significant differences between both groups (p = 0.1079). There was a statistically significant difference between both groups with regard the mean total operative time, which was 72 ±10.5 minutes for HoLEP and 92 ±11.5 minutes for ThuLEP, and the mean enucleation time, which was 50 ±8.5 minutes for HoLEP and 70 ±7.0 minutes for ThuLEP (p <0.001). No significant differences between the groups regarding catheterization time, hospital stay, or haemoglobin drop. Subjective and objective voiding parameters as IPSS and Qol scores, Qmax, and PVR improved significantly after treatment with both techniques with no statistically significant difference between both groups. The complication rate was low.
Conclusions:
Although HoLEP offers shorter operative time, low-power ThuLEP is a feasible choice for surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction as it offers similar clinical outcomes.

