Onur Telli1, Tolga Muharrem Okutucu2, Evren Suer2, Berk Burgu2, Omer Gulpinar2, Onder Yaman2, Selen Bozkurt3. 1. Department of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, School of Medicine, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study we aimed to compare photoselective vaporization (PVP) with the GreenLight 120-W Laser and monopolar transurethral resection as surgical treatments of prostates less than 80 cc in men with obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS:From February 2009 to March 2012 we allocated 101 patients with a prostate glands of less than 80 cc; patients were randomly assigned for surgical treatment with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (n = 62) or PVP (n = 39). Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), maximum flow rate (Qmax) postmicturition residual (PMR), transrectal ultrasound volumes (TRUS), postvoid urine residual (PVR), complications, re-operations and hospitalization time were collected. The patients were seen in the follow up at 6, 12 and 24 months. RESULTS:Median age was 69 (56-87) years old in the TURP group and 67 (51-87) years old in the PVP group. Mean preoperative prostate volume was 55 cc (40-72) and 60 cc (41-75) cc in the TURP group versus the PVP group. There was no statistically difference in subjectively (IPSS, SHIM) and objectively (Qmax-PMR) parameters and postoperatively complication rates between the two groups (p > 0.05). A significant difference was observed in the PVP group with a 2 (1-4) days hospital stay compared with 5 (3-9) days for the TURP group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:Prostate PVP and TURP are effective surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Postoperative functional improvements were durable and equivalent in the two groups. The two techniques have a similar complication rate.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: In this study we aimed to compare photoselective vaporization (PVP) with the GreenLight 120-W Laser and monopolar transurethral resection as surgical treatments of prostates less than 80 cc in men with obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: From February 2009 to March 2012 we allocated 101 patients with a prostate glands of less than 80 cc; patients were randomly assigned for surgical treatment with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (n = 62) or PVP (n = 39). Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), maximum flow rate (Qmax) postmicturition residual (PMR), transrectal ultrasound volumes (TRUS), postvoid urine residual (PVR), complications, re-operations and hospitalization time were collected. The patients were seen in the follow up at 6, 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: Median age was 69 (56-87) years old in the TURP group and 67 (51-87) years old in the PVP group. Mean preoperative prostate volume was 55 cc (40-72) and 60 cc (41-75) cc in the TURP group versus the PVP group. There was no statistically difference in subjectively (IPSS, SHIM) and objectively (Qmax-PMR) parameters and postoperatively complication rates between the two groups (p > 0.05). A significant difference was observed in the PVP group with a 2 (1-4) days hospital stay compared with 5 (3-9) days for the TURP group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prostate PVP and TURP are effective surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Postoperative functional improvements were durable and equivalent in the two groups. The two techniques have a similar complication rate.
Entities:
Keywords:
GreenLight; photoselective vaporization of prostate; prostatectomy; prostatic hyperplasia; transurethral resection of prostate
Authors: Alexander Bachmann; Andrea Tubaro; Neil Barber; Frank d'Ancona; Gordon Muir; Ulrich Witzsch; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Joan Benejam; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Antony Riddick; Sascha Pahernik; Herman Roelink; Filip Ameye; Christian Saussine; Franck Bruyère; Wolfgang Loidl; Tim Larner; Nirjan-Kumar Gogoi; Richard Hindley; Rolf Muschter; Andrew Thorpe; Nitin Shrotri; Stuart Graham; Moritz Hamann; Kurt Miller; Martin Schostak; Carlos Capitán; Helmut Knispel; J Andrew Thomas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alexander Bachmann; Robin Ruszat; Stephen Wyler; Oliver Reich; Helge H Seifert; Alexander Müller; Tullio Sulser Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Carlos Capitán; Cristina Blázquez; M Dolores Martin; Virginia Hernández; Enrique de la Peña; Carlos Llorente Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jaspreet S Sandhu; Casey Ng; Brian A Vanderbrink; Celeste Egan; Steven A Kaplan; Alexis E Te Journal: Urology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Alexander Bachmann; Leander Schürch; Robin Ruszat; Stephen F Wyler; Hans-Helge Seifert; Alexander Müller; Kurt Lehmann; Tullio Sulser Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2005-07-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Robin Ruszat; Michael Seitz; Stephen F Wyler; Constanze Abe; Malte Rieken; Oliver Reich; Thomas C Gasser; Alexander Bachmann Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-04-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Soum D Lokeshwar; Benjamin T Harper; Eric Webb; Andre Jordan; Thomas A Dykes; Durwood E Neal; Martha K Terris; Zachary Klaassen Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2019-10
Authors: Giacomo Maria Pirola; Daniele Castellani; Ee Jean Lim; Marcelo Langer Wroclawski; Dong Le Quy Nguyen; Marilena Gubbiotti; Emanuele Rubilotta; Vinson Wai-Shun Chan; Mariela Corrales; Esther García Rojo; Thomas R W Herrmann; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh; Vineet Gauhar Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-02-13 Impact factor: 4.226