Operative profile, safety and functional outcomes after GreenLight laser prostate surgery: results from a 12 months follow-up multicenter Italian cohort analyses

Giulio Reale, Michele Marchioni, Vincenzo Altieri, Francesco Greco, Cosimo De Nunzio, Paolo Destefanis, Stefano Ricciardulli, Franco Bergamaschi, Giuseppe Fasolis, Francesco Varvello, Salvatore Voce, Fabiano Palmieri, Claudio Divan, Gianni Malossini, Rino Oriti, Agostino Tuccio, Lorenzo Ruggera, Andrea Tubaro, Giampaolo Delicato, Antonino LaganàClaudio Dadone, Gaetano De Rienzo, Andrea Ditonno, Antonio Frattini, Luigi Pucci, Maurizio Carrino, Franco Montefiore, Stefano Germani, Roberto Miano, Luigi Schips, Salvatore Rabito, Giovanni Ferrari, Luca Cindolo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


BACKGROUND: Over the two past decades, GreenLight laser therapy has been considered a valid alternative for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia/benign prostatic obstruction (BPH/BPO). However, the debate on the effectiveness of laser therapy compared to conventional techniques is still open. The aim of our study is to analyze and describe the use of GreenLight laser prostate surgery in Italy, with regard to the surgical techniques performed and the surgical and functional outcomes at mid-term follow-up.

METHODS: From March 2012 to July 2018, patients who underwent GreenLight laser prostate surgery for LUTS due to BPH/BPO from 19 Italian centers were included. The following parameters were evaluated in the population: age, prostate volume, prostate adenoma volume, PSA tot, Q<inf>max</inf> at uroflowmetry (UFM), International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS), previous therapy for LUTS, use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs. We recorded also the kind of anesthesia, mean laser time (min), mean irradiation time (min), TURP conversion/completion rate, postoperative day of catheter removal, postoperative acute urinary retention (AUR), hospital stay, variation of hematocrit (Ht) and hemoglobin levels (Hb). Early complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the re-operation rate within 30 days and after 30 days, the late complications and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement were also collected. Changes over time in terms of blood loss and functional outcomes (IPSS and Q<inf>max</inf> at the UFM at 6 and 12 months) were tested with Student's test for paired samples. We assumed P≤0.05 as level of statistical significance.

RESULTS: Overall, 1077 were enrolled in the study, 554 (56.4%) were treated with standard vaporization and 523 (48.6%) with anatomical vaporization. Student's t-test for paired samples showed no statistically significant differences in terms of reduction of Ht preoperative vs. Ht postoperative (42.80±3.91 vs. 39.93±5.35 95% CI P=0.3) and preintervention and postintervention Hb levels (14.28±1.46 vs. 13.72 P=0.35). Compared with the preoperative Q<inf>max</inf> (8.60±2.64), the 6- and 12-month UFM showed a significant improvement [19.56±6.29, P<0.01 and 19.99±5.92 P<0.01]. In terms of IPSS variation, compared to the baseline level (22±5.51) the 6- and 12-month follow-up confirmed a significant reduction (8.01±4.41 P<0.01 and 5.81±4.12 P<0.01 respectively). Postoperative complications were CD0, CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4 in 33.0%,35.3%, 2.9%, 0.3%, and 0.6%.

CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the most numerous surgical series of GreenLight laser vaporization and with the longest follow-up. This technique should be considered as a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of secondary LUTS to BPH.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)622-628
Number of pages7
JournalMinerva urologica e nefrologica = The Italian journal of urology and nephrology
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2020


Dive into the research topics of 'Operative profile, safety and functional outcomes after GreenLight laser prostate surgery: results from a 12 months follow-up multicenter Italian cohort analyses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this