Ejaculatory Hood Sparing versus Standard Laser Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate: Sexual and Urodynamic Assessment through a Double Blinded, Randomized Trial.

Purpose: In a preliminary clinical trial we assessed the efficacy of ejaculatory hood sparing GreenLight™ Laser prostate photoselective vaporization to preserve antegrade ejaculation and urodynamic relief of obstruction compared to standard GreenLight prostate photoselective vaporization.

Materials And Methods: Standard prostate photoselective vaporization was classically performed in 24 patients. Ejaculatory hood sparing vaporization was performed with preservation of the paracollicular and supracollicular tissue proximal to the verumontanum in 25 patients. Patients were assessed at baseline, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively using the Ej-MSHQ (Ejaculatory Domain of Male Sexual Health Questionnaire) and the IIEF-15 (International Index of Erectile Function-15). The I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), uroflowmetry and post-void residual urine volume were reported at each followup visit. A standard urodynamic study was performed at 6 months.

Results: Antegrade ejaculation was reported in 85% and 31.6% of patients after hood sparing and standard prostate vaporization, respectively (p=0.001). A significant reduction in the EJ-MSHQ score was reported after standard vaporization at 6 and 12 months (each p <0.001) with no significant difference after hood sparing vaporization (p=0.18 and 0.078, respectively). The median EJ-MSHQ score was 28.5 (range 1 to 33) and 27 (range 1 to 33) for hood sparing vaporization, and 9.5 (range 1 to 35) and 9 (range 0 to 33) for standard vaporization at 6 (p=0.005) and 12 months (p <0.001), respectively. Each group showed a decline in the mean total IIEF-15 score at 1 year but it was statistically significant only after standard vaporization (p=0.001). All urinary outcome measures revealed comparable significant improvement at all followups. Postoperative urodynamic assessment demonstrated a significant comparable decrease in the Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index from a median of 64 (range 21 to 207) to 23.5 (range 10 to 53) after hood sparing vaporization (p=0.005) and from 87 (range 38 to 186) to 19.5 (range 7 to 51) after standard vaporization (p=0.001). At 1 year the overall re-treatment rate was comparable in the 2 groups (p=0.26).

Conclusions: In well informed, sexually interested patients ejaculatory hood sparing GreenLight prostate photoselective vaporization is feasible and effective treatment of small to moderate sized benign prostatic hyperplasia with a superior sexual function related outcome. Short-term relief of obstruction is objectively comparable to that of standard prostate photoselective vaporization.