Publication:
HoLEP versus ThuFLEP: perioperative and functional outcomes in prostate enucleation

dc.contributor.coauthorGokmen, E.
dc.contributor.coauthorAltuntas, T.
dc.contributor.coauthorSahak, M. Y.
dc.contributor.coauthorMidilli, H. T.
dc.contributor.coauthorOzgur, G.
dc.contributor.coauthorCam, K.
dc.contributor.coauthorSener, T. E.
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.kuauthorTarcan, Tufan
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSCHOOL OF MEDICINE
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-07T08:49:31Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.description.abstractObjective To compare the outcomes of laser enucleation techniques by evaluating the postoperative data of patients with benign prostate obstruction (BPO) undergoing ThuFLEP and HoLEP. Methods This retrospective study included men > 50 years with LUTS due to BPO who underwent HoLEP or ThuFLEP by a single experienced surgeon between January 2023 and January 2024. Patients were also stratified into subgroups according to prostate size (< 80 g vs. ≥ 80 g). The primary outcome was to compare success rate, operative duration, and efficiency of HoLEP and ThuFLEP; secondary outcomes included safety profile, catheter removal time, and long-term complications (stress urinary incontinence and stricture). Results A total of 163 patients (HoLEP: n = 94, ThuFLEP: n = 69) were included. Median operation time was longer in ThuFLEP (100 vs. 90 min, p = 0.001). Enucleation ratio, surgical efficiency, haemoglobin drop, ∆PVR, ∆Qmax, and ∆QoL were similar. IPSS improvement was greater in ThuFLEP (15 vs. 10 points, p = 0.023). In prostates > 80 g, ThuFLEP had longer operation and hospitalization times, but other perioperative and functional outcomes were comparable. Complication rates, catheterization time, and discharge duration were similar in all groups. Conclusions Both HoLEP and ThuFLEP are safe and effective for BPH treatment. ThuFLEP shows slightly longer operative time, especially in larger prostates, while functional improvements and complication rates are comparable.
dc.description.harvestedfromManual
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.readpublishN/A
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuTÜBİTAK
dc.description.sponsorshipOpen access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkiye
dc.description.versionPublished Version
dc.identifier.WoSQuartileQ1
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10103-026-04857-w
dc.identifier.eissn1435-604X
dc.identifier.embargoN/A
dc.identifier.endpage8
dc.identifier.issn0268-8921
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.pubmed42026256
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105036585508
dc.identifier.startpage1
dc.identifier.urihttp://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-026-04857-w
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/33281
dc.identifier.volume41
dc.identifier.wos001747436900001
dc.keywordsProstate
dc.keywordsLaser
dc.keywordsResection
dc.keywordsEnucleation
dc.keywordsPerioperative
dc.keywordsProstatectomy
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.relation.affiliationKoç University
dc.relation.collectionKoç University Institutional Repository
dc.relation.ispartofLasers in Medical Science
dc.relation.openaccessN/A
dc.rightsN/A
dc.rights.uriN/A
dc.subjectEngineering
dc.subjectSurgery
dc.titleHoLEP versus ThuFLEP: perioperative and functional outcomes in prostate enucleation
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e

Files