EXPERIENCE WITH THE ULTRALINE AND UROLASE LASER FIBERS - IS THERE ANYDIFFERENCE

Laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia has enjoyed growing po pularity among urologists over the last few years. Various applicators and techniques have been reported. Because this may result in a diffe rent overall performance, we performed a prospective randomized study comparing the results of treatment using the Ultra-line fiber (n = 44) with that using the Urolase fiber (n = 49). Although different types of fibers and techniques were used, the results of this study were sur prisingly similar for both fibers used. The uroflow for the Ultraline group increased from an average of 7.9 ml/s at baseline to 19.3 ml/s a t 3 months and 16.9 ml/s at 6 months. In the patients treated with the Urolase fiber the uroflow improved from an average of 7.8 ml/s at bas eline to 19.5 and 16.3 ml/s at 3 and 6 months, respectively. The impro vement in symptoms, reflected by changes in the I-PSS symptom scores, for the Ultraline group went from 21.0 at baseline to 7.9 at 3 months and 6.0 at 6 months. The Urolase patients improved from 21.0 at baseli ne to 8.2 and 5.6 at 3 and 6 month, respectively. The morbidity mainly consisted of a prolonged need for posttreatment catheterization and i rritative symptoms lasting for about 2-4 weeks. From this study we con clude that the results achieved by laser treatment of the prostate usi ng the Ultraline and Urolase fibers are both equivocal and excellent; however, the morbidity of these treatments remains considerable.