4.5 Article

Thulium:YAG 2 μm cw laser prostatectomy: where do we stand?

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 163-168

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-010-0522-x

关键词

Tm:YAG prostate; Thulium (laser) prostate; Thulium laser BPH; Thulium laser prostatectomy; Revolix; 2 mu m continuous wave laser

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tm:YAG 2 mu m cw laser prostatectomy was introduced in the treatment of benign ptostatic obstruction (BPO). Since then numerous studies have been published proving efficacy during follow-up. However, different surgical techniques were introduced with different names for similar techniques that complicate comparison. This reviews aim was to compare published data and break down surgical techniques to core points. The authors define validate appellations for different surgical techniques and propose further use of these names to ensure homogenous nomenclature. All publications on Thulium:YAG prostatectomy have been included in this review. Articles were reviewed and associated due to the nature of the surgical approach. A systematic review of published data was performed. Sixteen peer-reviewed publications dealing with Tm:YAG laser prostatectomy were printed since 2005. Four different surgical principles are described, including vaporization, resection and enucleation. Follow-up, up to 24 months, showed durable functional results. Efficacy of Tm:YAG prostatectomy was shown. Surgical techniques include Tm:YAG Vaporization of the prostate (ThuVAP), Tm:YAG VapoResection of the prostate (ThuVaRP) and Tm:YAG VapoEnucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP). The almost blunt enucleation is introduced as Tm:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP). The authors recommend the use of this neologism in the future. Further, large-scale prospective studies are needed to prove long-term durability. To initiate and canalize these upcoming studies, the Urothulium Study Group(A (c)) was founded, combining international experts on Thulium:YAG laser prostatectomy under its roof.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据