Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Urol Int. 2006;76(2):144-9.

Transurethral electrovapor resection versus standard transurethral resection treatment for a large prostate: a 2-year follow-up study conducted in Taiwan.

Author information

1
Department of Urology, Taipei City Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Those patients featuring a large prostate and undergoing transurethral resection typically face a longer duration of surgery, they have a higher degree of hemorrhage and a higher irrigant volume required for the procedure, and they tend to reflect a higher incidence of morbidity than is the case for a small prostate. We report on the relative safety and efficacy of transurethral electrovapor resection of the prostate (TUVRP) as compared with standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for Taiwanese patients having a prostate size >50 ml.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

Seventy-six symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia patients featuring a prostate size >50 ml were randomized and underwent either TUVRP using wedge loop or standard TURP. Perioperative parameters, treatment outcome, and adverse events associated with the surgical procedure are assessed herein.

RESULTS:

Mean operation time, changes in hemoglobin levels, resected prostate weight, perioperative irrigant volume needed, and incidences of recatheterizations and readmissions, all differed significantly when the two surgical procedures were compared. The average expense differences for the two procedures were impressive (p < 0.0001). No postoperative intergroup sexual dysfunction differences were noted. Clinical improvements following either TUVRP or TURP were significant and sustained for at least a period of 2 years. Intergroup comparison of International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life, peak flow rate, and postvoid residual volume revealed no significant differences at 2 years (p = 0.45, 0.48, 0.12, and 0.29, respectively). The need for postoperative medical retreatment and/or reoperation did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.62 and p = 0.56, respectively, at 6 months and p = 0.47 and p = 0.48, respectively, at 2 years).

CONCLUSIONS:

The TUVRP procedure offers advantages as regards a number of perioperative parameters when compared with the TURP procedure, and it seems that TUVRP might provide at least an equivalent treatment outcome as is the case for TURP.

PMID:
16493216
DOI:
10.1159/000090878
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for S. Karger AG, Basel, Switzerland
    Loading ...
    Support Center