Holmium Laser Ablation of the Prostate (HoLAP) Versus KTP Laser Vaporization of the Prostate
NCT ID: NCT00169767
Last Updated: 2008-04-25
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
TERMINATED
18 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2005-05-31
2008-04-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
One such surgical alternative in the treatment of BPH is holmium laser ablation of the prostate (HoLAP). HoLAP has been compared to TURP in a randomized clinical trial with comparable outcomes in both uroflow rate and symptom score improvements (Mottet, et al 1999). Use of the holmium laser in treating BPH provides specific advantages over TURP. The risk of dilutional hyponatremia is eliminated, as the holmium laser can be used in conjunction with a normal saline irrigant. In addition, the hemostatic properties of the holmium laser results in superior hemostasis, thus minimizing the risk of bleeding. HoLAP has been utilized for prostate glands up to 60 grams in volume, as larger glands become more inefficient to treat using a tissue vaporization technique.
Recently, another laser technology has been introduced for the surgical treatment of BPH, the potassium titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser. This modality can also be used to vaporize obstructive prostate tissue, and has been studied through single arm clinical studies. Short-term results are promising, with significant improvements in voiding symptoms and urine flow rates as well as minimal associated morbidity. However, to date a randomized comparison study between HoLAP and KTP laser vaporization of the prostate has not been reported. A group of investigators with extensive experience with both procedures intends to objectively compare these two procedures in a randomized clinical trial.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
TURP produces excellent short and long-term results and remains a standard of care for the surgical treatment of BPH. Unfortunately, this durable procedure has many potential risks and complications including bleeding requiring blood transfusion (\~5%), intraoperative complications (e.g. prostate capsule perforation), urethral and bladder injury, dilutional hyponatremia and the TUR syndrome, urinary tract infection (\~5-10%), incontinence (\~1%), erectile dysfunction (\~5%), bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture (\~5%), and delayed bleeding resulting in clot retention or secondary procedures to control bleeding. (American Urological Association \[AUA\] Guideline on Management of Benign Hyperplasia (2003). Chapter 1: Diagnosis and Treatment Recommendations Journal of Urology, 170: 530, 2003.)
One alternative to TURP that has been shown in a randomized clinical trial to reproduce the excellent results of TURP has been holmium laser ablation of the prostate (HoLAP) (Mottet et al, 1999). HoLAP is a simple procedure to perform in smaller prostate glands (ideally \< 60 gm) and recently reported results suggest that this procedure produces good results that are durable up to 7 years (Gilling et al, 2002).
A new technology for use during prostate ablation is the high power potassium titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser (Malek et al, 2000). This surgical procedure involves the use of the Laserscope™ KTP laser (San Jose, CA) to vaporize obstructing prostatic tissue in a technique similar to HoLAP. Most investigators have reported no significant complications with this new technology and in most cases, significant improvements in American Urological Association symptom scores and urine flow rates have been documented (Malek et al, 2000). Unfortunately, no randomized comparison study between HoLAP and KTP laser prostatectomy has been performed.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
A
Comparison study between KTP and HoLAP procedures for BPH
Comparison study between KTP and HoLAP for BPH
Comparison study between KTP and HoLAp for BPH
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Comparison study between KTP and HoLAP for BPH
Comparison study between KTP and HoLAp for BPH
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) felt to be secondary to bladder outlet obstruction from benign prostatic hyperplasia
* Maximum urinary flow rate \< 15 ml/sec, voided volume ≥ 125 cc
* American Urological Association symptom score ≥ 9
* Transrectal ultrasound determined prostate volume ≤ 60 cc
Exclusion Criteria
* Maximum urinary flow rate ≥ 15 ml/sec
* Transrectal ultrasound determined prostate volume \> 60cc
* AUA symptom score \< 9
* Active urinary tract infection
* Bleeding diathesis
* Neurological disease that is felt to affect the bladder or a history of a neurogenic or chronically decompensated bladder
* Known prostate cancer
* Active bladder cancer (within the last 2 years)
* Prostate specific antigen (PSA) \> 4.0 unless previous negative biopsy
* Urinary retention
* Post-void residual (PVR) \> 300 cc
18 Years
MALE
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Lumenis Be Ltd.
INDUSTRY
Indiana Kidney Stone Institute
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Indiana Kidney Stone Institute
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
James E Lingeman, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Methodist Urology, LLC
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Methodist Hospital
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Oakwood Annapolis Hospital
Westland, Michigan, United States
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
05-042
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id