OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects and safety between greenlight photoselective vaporization of prostate (PVP) and plasmakinetic resection of prostate (PRP) in eldly benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) men with high surgical risk. METHODS; Fifty three eldly BPH patients, who had the indication of surgical treatment but complicated with at least one internal disease, were randomly divided into PVP group and PRP group. The clinical data of all the patients were collected and compared between the two groups, including pre-operative and post-operative international prostate symptom score (IPSS), postvoid residual urine (PVR), urine flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QOL) as well as prostate volume (PV), operational time, operative bleeding volume, postoperative recovery, peri-operative complications. RESULTS: The complete follow-up data of 44 patients were achieved: 21 of PVP, 23 of PRP. There were significant differences between two groups in operative bleeding, bladder irrigation time, indwelling catheter time and hospital stay (P < 0.002). The peri-operative bleeding was lower in PVP group, while the bladder irrigation time, indwelling catheter time and hospital stay were shorter in PVP group. The operation time showed no difference (P = 0.12). No significant differences were found 3 months postoperatively between two groups in all the data associated with urination (IPSS, Qmax, PVR, QOL), P > 0.05. Complications (urethrostenosis, retrograde ejaculationwere acceptable in both groups. CONCLUSION: For surgical treatment of eldly men with high surgical risk, both PVP and PRP are safe and effective with the internal disease being sufficient control.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects and safety between greenlight photoselective vaporization of prostate (PVP) and plasmakinetic resection of prostate (PRP) in eldly benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) men with high surgical risk. METHODS; Fifty three eldly BPH patients, who had the indication of surgical treatment but complicated with at least one internal disease, were randomly divided into PVP group and PRP group. The clinical data of all the patients were collected and compared between the two groups, including pre-operative and post-operative international prostate symptom score (IPSS), postvoid residual urine (PVR), urine flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QOL) as well as prostate volume (PV), operational time, operative bleeding volume, postoperative recovery, peri-operative complications. RESULTS: The complete follow-up data of 44 patients were achieved: 21 of PVP, 23 of PRP. There were significant differences between two groups in operative bleeding, bladder irrigation time, indwelling catheter time and hospital stay (P < 0.002). The peri-operative bleeding was lower in PVP group, while the bladder irrigation time, indwelling catheter time and hospital stay were shorter in PVP group. The operation time showed no difference (P = 0.12). No significant differences were found 3 months postoperatively between two groups in all the data associated with urination (IPSS, Qmax, PVR, QOL), P > 0.05. Complications (urethrostenosis, retrograde ejaculationwere acceptable in both groups. CONCLUSION: For surgical treatment of eldly men with high surgical risk, both PVP and PRP are safe and effective with the internal disease being sufficient control.
Authors: Glyn Burtt; Cassandra Springate; Alison Martin; Emily Woodward; Paul Zantek; Feras Al Jaafari; Gordon Muir; Vincent Misrai Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2022-06-17