OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP), using a grooved roller electrode, for the surgical treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: TUVP was carried out using a grooved roller electrode, pure-cutting diathermy and a standard irrigating resectoscope to rapidly heat prostatic tissue to > 100 degrees C, resulting in vaporization and cavitation of the prostatic adenoma. Over a 10 month period, 116 patients (mean age 69.8 years, range 51-93) with symptomatic BPH (confirmed by a symptom score, urinary flow rate and an ultrasonographic estimate of residual volume) were treated by TUVP. Patients with carcinoma of the prostate, an elevated level of prostate-specific antigen or those in chronic urinary retention were excluded from the study. Each patient was followed up every 4 months during the first post-operative year, assessing their flow rate, residual volume and symptom score. RESULTS: Symptom scores improved by 67% and residual volumes by 72%; the mean maximal flow rate increased from 8.5 mL/s (range 3.5-14) before treatment to 20.5 mL/s (range 4.5-39.0) at the same 4 month review. The procedure was simple and safe, with a mean operative duration of 35 min (range 20-65), and no patients required a blood transfusion. Most patients had their catheters removed within 24 h and were discharged on the second day after treatment. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of TUVP in improving symptoms and flow rates in patients with BPH was established. With minimal capital expenditure and a reduced in-patient stay. TUVP appears to have several advantages over other surgical treatments for BPH, although continued follow-up is needed to establish the long-term results.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP), using a grooved roller electrode, for the surgical treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: TUVP was carried out using a grooved roller electrode, pure-cutting diathermy and a standard irrigating resectoscope to rapidly heat prostatic tissue to > 100 degrees C, resulting in vaporization and cavitation of the prostatic adenoma. Over a 10 month period, 116 patients (mean age 69.8 years, range 51-93) with symptomatic BPH (confirmed by a symptom score, urinary flow rate and an ultrasonographic estimate of residual volume) were treated by TUVP. Patients with carcinoma of the prostate, an elevated level of prostate-specific antigen or those in chronic urinary retention were excluded from the study. Each patient was followed up every 4 months during the first post-operative year, assessing their flow rate, residual volume and symptom score. RESULTS: Symptom scores improved by 67% and residual volumes by 72%; the mean maximal flow rate increased from 8.5 mL/s (range 3.5-14) before treatment to 20.5 mL/s (range 4.5-39.0) at the same 4 month review. The procedure was simple and safe, with a mean operative duration of 35 min (range 20-65), and no patients required a blood transfusion. Most patients had their catheters removed within 24 h and were discharged on the second day after treatment. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of TUVP in improving symptoms and flow rates in patients with BPH was established. With minimal capital expenditure and a reduced in-patient stay. TUVP appears to have several advantages over other surgical treatments for BPH, although continued follow-up is needed to establish the long-term results.