Indian Journal of Urology Users online:741  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 140-143

Comparison of the efficiency and complications of lumenis and wolf morcellators after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate


1 Department of Urology, Fortis Hospital Mulund, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Urology, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Pankaj N Maheshwari
Department of Urology, Fortis Hospital Mulund, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/iju.IJU_133_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a recognized option for the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. While the laser parameters and enucleation techniques have been widely studied, the morcellation techniques still remain under-evaluated. The current study evaluates the two commonly used morcellation devices for their in vivo efficiency and patient safety. Materials and Methods: A total of 222 patients who underwent HoLEP at two medical centres between January 2011 to December 2013 by a single surgeon were included. Of these 222 patients, the Richard Wolf Piranha Morcellation System, Germany (WM), was used on 140 patients, while on the remaining 82, the Lumenis® VersaCut™ Morcellator, Yokneam, Israel (LM), was used. These devices were compared for safety parameters such as the incidence of bladder mucosal injury, deep muscle injury, bladder perforation, and bleeding requiring electrocoagulation. The morcellation efficiency (ME) defined as the ratio of the weight of morcellated tissue in grams to the time required for morcellation in minutes was also compared. Results: The incidence of bladder mucosal injury, deep muscle injury, and bleeding requiring electrocoagulation was statistically significantly lower for the WM than the LM. None of the patients had a full-thickness bladder perforation with either of the morcellators. The ME was higher for the LM. In eight patients, hard, smooth rounded adenomatous nodules could not be morcellated by the WM and had to be crushed by a stone grasping forceps before morcellation. Conclusions: While the LM is a faster morcellator, WM has a better safety profile.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed846    
    Printed24    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded54    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

HEALTHWARE INDIA