Background To compare the efficacy and safety of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for moderate [prostate volume (PV) 30–80 ml] and large (≥ 80 ml) benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). Materials and methods Male patients with lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) or urinary retention who underwent B-TUVP or HoLEP treatment in two regional centers were respectively enrolled. Patient characteristics and treatment outcomes were retrospectively compared between B-TUVP and HoLEP. Results In patients with moderate and large prostate volume,B-TUVP showed shorter operative time (P < 0.001) and less hemoglobin decrease (P < 0.001) than in HoLEP. In uncatheterised patients, voiding symptoms and patients’ quality of life improved after B-TUVP and HoLEP, but these improvement rates were consistently bigger in HoLEP than in B-TUVP. In catheterised patients, the rate of achieving catheter-free status after surgery was higher in HoLEP than in B-TUVP for patients with PV > 80 ml.(P < 0.001) The incidence of postoperative fever was higher in B-TUVP than in HoLEP for patients with PV 30–80 ml (P < 0.001) but not for those with PV > 80 ml.(P=0.08) The Incidence of postoperative stress incontinence(SUI) was higher in HoLEP than in B-TUVP for patients with moderate and large prostate volume. Conclusions There are few studies that investigated the short-term efficacy and safety of second-generation B-TUVP in comparison with HoLEP for moderate and large BPE. Improvement in LUTS and achievement of catheter-free status were predominant in HoLEP, and these outcomes were more prominent in patients with large BPE of PV > 80 ml. However, B-TUVP resulted in less blood loss, shorter operative duration, and less SUI suggesting that B-TUVP is also well-tolerated surgical modality.

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for moderate [prostate volume (PV) 30-80 ml] and large (≥ 80 ml) benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). Materials and Methods: Male patients with lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) or urinary retention who underwent B-TUVP or HoLEP treatment in two regional, high-volume centers were respectively enrolled. The patient-oriented and treatment outcomes were retrospectively compared between B-TUVP and HoLEP. Results: B-TUVP showed shorter operative time and less hemoglobin decrease than in HoLEP. In uncatheterized patients, voiding symptoms and patients’ quality of life improved after B-TUVP and HoLEP, but these improvement rates were consistently bigger in HoLEP than in B-TUVP. In catheterized patients, the rate of achieving catheter-free status after surgery was higher in HoLEP than in B-TUVP for patients with PV >80 ml. The incidence of postoperative fever was higher in B-TUVP than in HoLEP for patients with PV 30-80 ml but not for those with PV >80 ml. Conclusions: This is the first retrospective study investigating the short-term efficacy and safety of second-generation B-TUVP in comparison with HoLEP for moderate and large BPE. Improvement in LUTS and achievement of catheter-free status were predominant in HoLEP, and these outcomes were more prominent in patients with large BPE of PV >80 ml. However, B-TUVP resulted in less blood loss, shorter operative duration, and less urinary incontinence suggesting that B-TUVP is also well-tolerated surgical modality.