Zhe Liu1, Yuan Wei Li2, Wan Rui Wu2, Qiang Lu2. 1. Department of Urology, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, Changsha, Hunan Province, China. Electronic address: 18974898411@189.cn. 2. Department of Urology, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, Changsha, Hunan Province, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the differences on clinical efficacy, complications, and safety profile between transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six hundred ninety patients of BPH were recruited from May 2008 to May 2011 and divided into TURP group and PKRP group. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life score (QoL), postvoid residual urine (PVR), maximum flow rate (Qmax), complications, International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) questionnaire, and retrograde ejaculation were used for evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety and sexual function between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The intraoperative irrigation volume, postoperative irrigation volume, postoperative irrigation time, decrease in sodium, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of catheterization of the PKRP group were significantly lower than those of the TURP group (P <.05). For comparison of complications, the incidence rates of massive hemorrhage, blood transfusion, capsular perforation, prolonged hematuria, micturition frequency, micturition urgency, and micturition pain of the PKRP group were significantly less than those of the TURP group (P <.05). During the 5-year follow-up, the PKRP group showed better effect on IPSS, QoL, PVR, and Qmax compared with the TURP group (P <.05), but there were no significant differences on IIEF-5 and retrograde ejaculation (P > .05). CONCLUSION: PKRP is just as efficacious as TURP and is associated with a lower rate of certain morbidities. Its lower complications and better safety profile make PKRP an attractive alternative for treatment of BPH.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the differences on clinical efficacy, complications, and safety profile between transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six hundred ninety patients of BPH were recruited from May 2008 to May 2011 and divided into TURP group and PKRP group. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life score (QoL), postvoid residual urine (PVR), maximum flow rate (Qmax), complications, International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) questionnaire, and retrograde ejaculation were used for evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety and sexual function between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The intraoperative irrigation volume, postoperative irrigation volume, postoperative irrigation time, decrease in sodium, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of catheterization of the PKRP group were significantly lower than those of the TURP group (P <.05). For comparison of complications, the incidence rates of massive hemorrhage, blood transfusion, capsular perforation, prolonged hematuria, micturition frequency, micturition urgency, and micturition pain of the PKRP group were significantly less than those of the TURP group (P <.05). During the 5-year follow-up, the PKRP group showed better effect on IPSS, QoL, PVR, and Qmax compared with the TURP group (P <.05), but there were no significant differences on IIEF-5 and retrograde ejaculation (P > .05). CONCLUSION: PKRP is just as efficacious as TURP and is associated with a lower rate of certain morbidities. Its lower complications and better safety profile make PKRP an attractive alternative for treatment of BPH.