Comparison between thulium laser vapoenucleation and plasmakinetic resection of the prostate in men aged 75 years and older in a real-life setting: a propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Urologists may hesitate to offer transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) because of increased morbidity in elderly patients. AIMS: We aimed to compare data on postoperative outcomes of elderly men undergoing bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) as compared to thulium laser vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data of all patients aged ≥ 75 years who underwent benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery. Differences between interventions were estimated using propensity scores (PS) to adjust for different patients characteristics. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 275 men were included in the analysis. Propensity score retrieved 65 patients in each group. Median age was 78 (4) years in B-TURP group and 78 (6) in ThuVEP group. Median prostate volume was 63 (35) ml and 54 (24) ml in B-TURP group and ThuVEP group, respectively. Only American Society of Anesthesiologists score was significantly higher in ThuVEP group (p = 0.006). Median operation time, catheterization time, and hospital stay were similar in both groups (55 min, 2 and 3 days). Overall, 84.6% of men had no complications, with no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.234). Only one patient in B-TURP group experienced a Clavien grade IIIb complication. By 1 year, there were a statistically significant differences in International Prostate Symptom Score (p = 0.000) in favor of B-TURP group and in maximal urine flow rate (p = 0.000) in favor of ThuVEP group. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures showed excellent functional improvements one year after surgery with a low rate of major complications in men aged ≥ 75 years with small-to-medium sized prostates.

Analysis of risk factors of bladder neck contracture following transurethral surgery of prostate.

BACKGROUNDS: The aim of the present study was to investigate the perioperative parameters associated with bladder neck contracture (BNC) after transurethral surgery of the prostate and to compare the incidence of BNC after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or Thulium vaporesection (resection group) versus Thulium vapoenucleation or enucleation of the prostate (enucleation group). METHODS: Between March 2008 and March 2020, 2363 patients received TURP and 1656 patients received transurethral surgery of the prostate with Thulium laser (ThuP) at Mackay Memorial Hospital. A total of 62 patients developed BNC. These BNC patients were age-and operation-matched to 124 randomly sampled TURP/ThuP controls without BNC. A 1:1 propensity score matching model was used to evaluate the difference in incidence of BNC. RESULTS: Our study demonstrated that a greater proportion of BNC patients had history of cerebrovascular accidents (11/62 vs. 7/124, p = 0.009), coronary artery disease (14/48 vs. 16/108, p = 0.03), chronic kidney disease (14/62 vs. 11/124, p = 0.01), and two or more comorbidities (29/62 vs. 27/124, p = 0.001) compared with NBNC patients. Multivariate analysis showed that smaller prostate volume (OR 0.96 (0.94-0.99), p = 0.008) and recatherization (OR 5.6 (1.02-30.6), p = 0.047) were significantly associated with BNC. A ROC curve predicted that a prostate volume < 42.9 cm3 was associated with a notably higher rate of BNC. The propensity score matching model reported there was no difference in incidence between resection and enucleation groups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that incidence of BNC was the same in different surgical techniques and that low prostate volume, recatherization and ≥ 2 comorbidities were positively correlated with the development of BNC after TURP or ThuP.

Lasers in Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate-Do We Really Need Them.

The acronym EEP, coding for transurethral Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate, was introduced in 2016 by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines panel on management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Since then, a laser-based treatment, Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP), and the current-based treatment of bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP) are equally appreciated as valuable options for the management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). This was mainly inspired by the results of two meta-analyses on randomized controlled trials, comparing open prostatectomy with either Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) or bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipoLEP). Prior to that, HoLEP was embraced as the only valid option for transurethral enucleation, although evidence for equivalence existed as early as 2006, but was not recognized due to a plethora of acronyms for bipolar energy-based treatments and practiced HoLEP-centrism. On the other hand, the academic discourse focused on different (other) laser approaches that came up, led by Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) Vapoenucleation (ThuVEP) in 2009 and, finally, transurethral anatomical enucleation with Tm:YAG support (thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, ThuLEP) in 2010. Initially, the discourse on lasers focused on the different properties of lasers rather than technique or surgical anatomy, respectively. In and after 2016, the discussion ultimately moved towards surgical technique and accepting anatomical preparation as the common of all EEP techniques (AEEP). Since then, the unspoken question has been raised, whether lasers are still necessary to perform EEP in light of existing evidence, given the total cost of ownership (TCO) for these generators. This article weighs the current evidence and comes to the conclusion that no evidence of superiority of one modality over another exists with regard to any endpoint. Therefore, in the sense of critical importance, AEEP can be safely and effectively performed without laser technologies and without compromise.

GreenLight Laser photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate with front-firing emission versus plasmakinetic resection of the prostate for benign prostate hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Although the conventional, monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has proven to be an effective and relatively safe treatment for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), many new endoscopic technologies have been introduced to treat BPH. With the development of laser, there are several alternative transurethral procedures embracing laser therapies. Herein, this study sought to explore the efficacy, safety and follow-up of GreenLight laser photoselective vapo-enucleation of the prostate (PVEP) with front-firing emission compared with plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) used to surgically manage BPH. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent either GreenLight laser PVEP or PKRP were retrospectively collected from March 2013 to May 2018. Perioperative data from both groups were compared. RESULTS: Totally, 43 and 45 patients were included in the PVEP and PKRP groups, respectively. No significant difference was observed in excision efficiency ratio (resected prostate weight/operation time) between the two groups (P=0.372). The efficiency ratio of the first 20 PVEP procedures (0.36±0.09 g/min) was significantly lower than that of the second 23 PVEP procedures (0.45±0.18 g/min) (P=0.042). The PVEP group experienced a shorter duration of catheterization, postoperative hospital stay and irrigation time than the PKRP group (P<0.001, P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P=0.937) in terms of overall postoperative complications. Three months after surgery, the international prostate symptoms (IPSS) score, quality of life (QOL) score, postvoid residual (PVR) volume and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) were decreased in both groups (P<0.001 for all) and were comparable between both groups (P=0.635, 0.662, 0.671 and 0.924, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight laser PVEP with front-firing emission was safe and effective modality in treating patients with BPH with short-term follow-up. PVEP was associated with shorter catheterization and postoperative hospital stay time compared with PKRP.

Standardization of 532 nm Laser Terminology for Surgery in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: The use of GreenLight™ laser technology to remove the prostatic transitional zone transurethrally has grown considerably in recent years. This increased utilization has resulted in an increase in the number of terms that are used to describe various laser techniques. Variable terminology complicates literature analysis and publication, which can cause confusion when performing reviews and comparisons of the techniques in the available literature. It has therefore become necessary to simplify and standardize terminology used to describe transurethral prostate debulking procedures using the 532 nm laser to simplify communication on these techniques. Materials and Methods: We conducted a search on September 17, 2019, in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid EMBASE, and PubMed. Results: Of the 1115 unique records found in our database search, a total of 27 articles were selected for inclusion. Of the 16 search terms used, we found that 4 terms could be used to describe the fundamental technique associated with each search term. These terms include "vaporization," "vaporesection," "vapoenucleation," and "enucleation." Conclusions: Standardizing terminology leads to an efficient consolidation of terms based on the above outcomes. This will streamline the literature search process for future publications and facilitate comparison of varying techniques.

Thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) for prostates larger than 85 ml: long-term durability of the procedure.

The purpose of this prospective study of 90 consecutive patients is to assess the long-term durability of ThuVEP in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate volumes ≥ 85 ml. Ninety patients with prostates ≥ 85 ml underwent ThuVEP between 2008 and 2010 at our institution. Patient demographics and short-term and long-term follow-up were evaluated. Maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-void residual urine (PVR), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), complications, and PSA were assessed at follow-up. Median age at surgery was 71 (66-75.25) years. Thirty-seven (41.1%) of the patients were in urinary retention at the time of surgery. Prostate volume was 100 (88-122) ml. Median follow-up was 36.5 (16-60) months. At 12-month follow-up, IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR had improved significantly compared with preoperative assessment and continued to do so during follow-up (p < 0.001). At 4-year postoperative, median Qmax (19.1 vs. 7.75 ml/s), PVR (31.9 vs. 150 ml), IPSS (4.5 vs. 24), and QoL (1 vs. 5) differed significantly from baseline (p ≤ 0.027). PSA decreased from 7.4 (4.14-14) to 0.70 (0.36-1.64) µg/l (p < 0.001) at 48-month follow-up, corresponding to a PSA reduction of 86.48% (79.85-95.25%). Urinary tract infections occurred in 2 (2.2%) patients. Urethral stricture and bladder neck contracture developed in 1 (1.1%) patient each. One patient (1.1%) had recurrent adenoma of the prostate and was treated with thulium vaporesection of the prostate. ThuVEP is a durable modern alternative to open prostatectomy for patients with substantially enlarged prostates due to BPH. The incidence of complications with ThuVEP during long-term follow-up was low.

Vapoenucleation of the Prostate Using 180 W GreenLight Laser.

INTRODUCTION: The vapoenucleation of the prostate using green laser is an alternative hybrid technique between vaporization and enucleation. It consists of vaporizing the lateral lobes and enucleating the median lobe. The advantages compared with photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) are: a fairly fast operation, low reoperation rates, it is suitable for large glands and provides pathology specimen. The aim of this video is to demonstrate the vapoenucleation technique step-by-step. METHODS: The surgery was performed with a 532-nm lithium triborate laser (GreenLight XPS 180W, American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, Minnesota), MoXy side-fire laser fiber at power settings: 180 W for cutting, 35 W for coagulation and a Piranha morcellation system (Richard Wolf GmbH, Germany). CASE REPORT: A 68-year-old patient presented with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction. The prostate volume was 88 mL, PSA of 3.4 ng/mL, the peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) was 7 mL/s, the postvoid residual volumen was 160 mL and international prostate symptom score was 22. RESULTS: The total operative time was 72 minutes, total energy employed was 354 kJ and the pathology report showed no evidence of prostate cancer (35 g). The bladder catheter was removed at 24 hours postsurgery and the patient was discharged 48 hours postoperative without complications. Three months later all the parameters showed significant improvement (PSA: 1.02 ng/mL, international prostate symptom score: 4, Qmax: 43 mL/seg and postvoid residual volumen: 15 mL). CONCLUSION: Green laser vapoenucleation of the prostate represents a safe alternative technique for the complete removal of adenomatous prostate tissue, regardless of gland size, and it is particularly advantageous for the treatment of large prostates. This technique can also be used as an intermediate step during the learning curve of "en bloc" green laser enucleation of the prostate (GreenLEP). These promising results warrant further studies to assess long-term outcomes.

Thulium Vaporesection of the Prostate and Thulium Vapoenucleation of the Prostate: A Retrospective Bicentric Matched-Paired Comparison with 24-Month Follow-Up.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the intermediate-term outcomes of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) and thulium vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVaRP) in patients with benign prostate obstruction (BPO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bicentric retrospective matched-paired comparison of patients treated by ThuVEP (n = 80) or ThuVaRP (n = 80) was performed. The patients were preoperatively assessed with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), post-void residual urine (PVR), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), prostatespecific antigen (PSA) and re-evaluated at 12- and 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: Median prostate volume was 65 mL and not different between the groups. The immediate re-operation rate was significantly different between ThuVEP and ThuVaRP (5 vs. 0%, p ≤ 0.0434). IPSS, QoL, Qmax and PVR had improved significantly compared to preoperative assessment in both groups at 12- and 24-month follow-up (p ≤ 0.001). Median Qmax (18.2 vs. 21.0 mL/s) and PVR (29.4 vs. 0 mL) were significantly different between ThuVEP and ThuVaRP at 24-month follow-up (p ≤ 0.001), while IPSS and QoL showed no differences between the groups. However, the PSA reduction was significantly higher after ThuVEP compared to ThuVaRP (78.93 vs. 23.39%, p ≤ 0.006) at 24-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: ThuVEP and ThuVaRP are safe and efficacious procedures for patients with BPO. Although the peri-operative re-intervention rates were lower after ThuVaRP, the low PSA reduction rate after ThuVaRP at 24-month follow-up favours the ThuVEP procedure.

Transurethral bipolar plasmakinetic vapo-enucleation of the prostate: Is it safe for patients on chronic oral anticoagulants and/or platelet aggregation inhibitors?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of bipolar plasmakinetic enucleation and resection of the prostate (PKERP) for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in patients on oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy and/or platelet aggregation inhibitors (PAIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 91 patients were recruited and underwent PKERP whilst they were receiving PAIs (aspirin, 56 patients; clopidogrel, three; aspirin and clopidogrel, 11). In all, 15 patients were receiving an OAC drug perioperatively, whilst another six patients were on dual PAIs and OACs. The primary outcomes were the perioperative morbidity and mortality rates. The secondary outcomes were functional outcomes including maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), and post-void residual urine volume (PVR). RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the patients was 65 (5.9) years, preoperative adenoma volume was 80.9 (30.4) mL, and the operative time was 67 (23) min. No patient developed serious perioperative cardiovascular complications. The mean (SD) duration of hospital stay was 1.79 (1) days and the postoperative catheterisation time was 1.14 (0.76) days. The mean (SD) haemoglobin drop was 0.74 (0.61) g/dL, blood transfusion rate was 2.2%, and the clot retention rate was 2.2%. The mean (SD) postoperative Qmax was 18.6 (4.37) mL/s as compared to 7.2 (3.2) mL/s preoperatively (P < 0.001), and the preoperative IPSS was reduced from 24.3 (6.1) to 5.7 (2.3) postoperatively (P < 0.05). Prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography was significantly reduced from a mean (SD) of 80.9 (30.4) mL preoperatively to 29.5 (10.6) mL postoperatively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive PKERP may be considered as a safe and effective treatment option for managing patients with BPH receiving OAC/PAI drugs.

A prospective, randomized trial comparing thulium vapoenucleation with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction: perioperative safety and efficacy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the perioperative outcomes of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for patients with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS: Forty-eight and 46 patients were prospectively randomized to ThuVEP and HoLEP. All patients were assessed preoperatively and 4-week postoperatively. The complications were noted and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system. Patient data were expressed as median (interquartile range) or numbers (%). RESULTS: Median age at surgery was 73 (67-76) years and median prostate volume was 80 (46.75-100) cc and not different between the groups (p = 0.207). The median operative time was 60 (41-79) minutes without significant differences between both groups (p = 0.275). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding catheterization time [2 (2-2) days, p = 0.966] and postoperative stay [2 (2-3) days, p = 0.80]). Clavien 1 (13.8%), Clavien 2 (3.2%), Clavien 3a (2.1%), and Clavien 3b (4.3%) complications occurred without significant differences between the groups. However, the occurrence of acute postoperative urinary retention was higher after HoLEP compared to ThuVEP (15.2 vs. 2.1%, p ≤ 0.022). At 1-month follow-up, peak urinary flow rates (10.7 vs. 22 ml/s), post-void residual volumes (100 vs. 20 ml), International Prostate Symptom Score (20 vs. 10) and Quality of Life (4 vs. 3) had improved significantly (p ≤ 0.005) without significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: ThuVEP and HoLEP are safe and effective procedures for the treatment of symptomatic BPO. Both procedures give equivalent and satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.

Five-year outcomes of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the 5-year outcomes of thulium vapoenucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) in patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) retrospectively. METHODS: Five-hundred patients were treated with ThuVEP between January 2007 and January 2010 at our institution. Patients were reassessed 1 and 5-years after ThuVEP with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Quality of Life (QoL), urinary peak flow (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), PSA and prostate volume. Patient data were expressed as median (interquartile range). RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty-one patients completed the 5-year follow-up. According to preoperative prostate volume, patients were divided into two groups: group A (<60 ml, n = 80) and B (≥60 ml, n = 51). IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and PVR improved significantly at discharge and continued to do so during 5-year follow-up (p ≤ 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, prostate volume had decreased significantly (50 vs. 13 mL, p < 0.001) corresponding to a prostate volume reduction of 80.8%. PSA was significantly reduced at 5-year (0.72 µg/l) follow-up compared to preoperative PSA (3.39 µg/l, p ≤ 0.001). PSA-reduction (total 77.1%) at 5-year follow-up was significantly different between group A (70.2%) and B (83.5%) (p ≤ 0.006). IPSS was significantly lower in group B than in A (2.5 vs. 6, p < 0.001) at 5-year follow-up. Bladder neck contractures (n = 4) and urethral strictures (n = 4) occurred in 3.1% of the patients each. Three patients (2.3%) were re-treated for regrowth of prostatic tissue. CONCLUSIONS: ThuVEP is a durable procedure with regard to micturition improvement and PSA-reduction. The reintervention rate after ThuVEP was low during long-term follow-up.

A review of thulium laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate: A novel laser-based strategy for benign prostate enlargement.

Thulium laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate is the latest addition to the arsenal of minimally invasive therapies available for the surgical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostate hyperplasia. The potential advantages include smoother vaporisation, a clearer visual field and the option of both continuous-wave and pulsed modes, which also potentiate the haemostatic properties of this endoscopic method. Short-term results show that it yields significant improvements in both subjective and objective outcomes, with a strong safety profile. Large-scale randomised studies with a longer follow-up are warranted to determine the durability of this laser procedure.

A prospective, randomized comparison of a 1940 nm and a 2013 nm thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser device for Thulium VapoEnucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP): First results.

INTRODUCTION: We report the early postoperative results of the first prospective, randomized comparison of two commercially available thulium lasers with different wavelengths for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January to June 2013, 80 consecutive patients were randomized for Thulium VapoEnucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP) with a 2013 nm (RevoLix(®)) (n = 39) or a 1940 nm (Vela(®)XL) (n = 41) thulium laser. Preoperative status, surgical details and the immediate outcome were recorded for each patient. The perioperative complications were assessed and classified according to the modified Clavien classification system. RESULTS: Median operation time, resected tissue, percentage of resected tissue, catheter time, overall operation efficiency and Hb loss differed nonsignificantly between both devices (P > 0.05). At discharge, the median maximum urinary flow rate and postvoiding residual (PVR) urine improved significantly in both groups (P < 0.001). The PVR was lower in the 1940 nm ThuVEP group (P ≤ 0.034). Perioperative complications occurred in 18 (22.5%) patients (Clavien 1: 12.5%; Clavien 2: 5%, Clavien 3b: 2.5%, Clavien 4a: 2.5%), with no differences between the groups (P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: The 1940 nm and the 2013 nm thulium lasers are both safe and effective for the treatment of BPO with ThuVEP. Both lasers give equivalent and satisfactory immediate micturition improvement with low perioperative morbidity.

Thulium laser (RevoLix) vaporesection versus vapoenucleation with morcellator (Piranha) for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: a propensity-matched multicenter analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of vaporesection without a morcellator, and vapoenucleation with a morcellator in thulium laser prostatectomy for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. METHODS: Between March 2010 and January 2013, 405 patients underwent thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser prostatectomy. Among these patients, 150 patients who underwent thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser prostatectomy without a morcellator (n = 75) or with a morcellator (n = 75) were analyzed in a propensity matching study. Outcome measures included International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life score, maximum flow rate, postvoid residual, total operating time, laser time and resected tissue weight. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between the thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser prostatectomy without a morcellator and thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser prostatectomy with a morcellator groups, including the prostate volume (50.3 vs 51.9 mL) and postoperative prostate volume (22.4 vs 18.7 mL). However, there were differences between the groups in total operating time (72.8 vs 61.0 min, P = 0.023) and laser activating time (24.5 vs 19.9 min, P = 0.037). Thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser prostatectomy with a morcellator showed greater resected tissue volume than thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser prostatectomy without a morcellator (9.0 vs 18.2 g, P = 0.029). There were also significant differences in total retrieval efficiency (1.14 vs 1.67 g/min, P = 0.031). There were no significant differences in improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life scores and urodynamic findings between the two groups, except for the International Prostate Symptom Score (11.2 vs 7.3, P = 0.028) at 6 weeks after surgery. CONCLUSION: Thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser prostatectomy with a morcellator provides superior reduction of prostate volume and better short-term clinical outcomes than thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser prostatectomy without a morcellator in the treatment of patients with benign prostatic obstruction. Furthermore, thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser prostatectomy with a morcellator can offer a shorter operative time.

The Efficacy and Safety of 2μm Laser Vapoenucleation of the Prostate / 天津医药

Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 2μm Thulium laser vaporization enucleation (Thu-VEP) in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Methods A total of 145 patients with BPH were randomized into two groups including patients underwent ThuVEP and patients underwent standard transurethral resection of the pros-tate (TURP). The intraoperative blood loss,flushing fluid quantity,operation time,bladder irrigating time,catheterization time,the international prostate symptom score (IPSS),quality of life score (QOL),the maximum flow rate (Qmax),the post-void residual (PVR) and complications were observed in two groups. Results There were no significant differences in pa-tient age, preoperative duration, prostate weight, IPSS score,QOL score,Qmax and RUV between two groups. Patients in two groups were performed surgery successfully. The values of blood loss, bladder irrigating time and catheterization time were significantly less in ThuVEP group than those of TUEP group (P＜0.05). There were no postoperative complications in pa-tients of ThuVEP group. There were 5 cases of complications in TUEP group after operation. The values of IPSS score,QOL score,Qmax and RUV were significantly different after 3-12-month follow up than those before operation(P＜0.01),but no significant difference between two groups. Conclusion ThuVEP is a safe and more effective treatment than that of TURP for patients with BPH. ThuVEP can significantly improve the quality of life, and reduce complications in patients with BPH.