OBJECTIVE: A prospective randomized study comparing transurethral electrovaporization (TVP) vs laser ablation of the prostate was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of the procedures. METHODS: A total of 31 patients underwent treatment, with 20 patients receivingelectrovaporization surgery and 11 patients undergoing laser treatment. Patients underwent initial evaluation consisting of an American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score, prostate specific antigen (PSA), uroflowometry, pressure flow, and transrectal ultrasound for prostate volume. Patients were seen in follow-up at 1, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients with a 2:1 randomization of TVP to laser treatment were enrolled. The laser patients had a mean pre-operative AUA symptom score of 19.0 and scores of 9.0, 6.0 and 5.0 at 1-, 3- and 6-month follow-up. The TVP patients had a mean pre-operative symptom score of 22.0 and scores of 7.0, 8.0 and 5.0 at 1-, 3- and 6-month follow-up. Mean peak uroflow (PF) rate pre-operative was 10.7 for the laser group and 7.7 for the TVP group. At 1-, 3- and 6-month follow-up, mean PF rates of 13.3, 17.6 and 16.5 were present for the laser patients and 15.0, 17.5 and 14.2 for the TVP group. The differences were not statistically significant. There were 6 complications in the laser patients and 7 complications in the TVP group. Operative time was a mean of 27 min for the laser patients and 46 min for the TVP group, and the difference in operative time was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: At 6-month follow-up the improvement in symptoms score and peak flow rate are comparable in both treatment groups. The electrovaporization procedure required significantly longer to perform than the laser procedure. Long-term follow-up is required to see if these results remain sustainable for electrovaporization therapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: A prospective randomized study comparing transurethral electrovaporization (TVP) vs laser ablation of the prostate was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of the procedures. METHODS: A total of 31 patients underwent treatment, with 20 patients receiving electrovaporization surgery and 11 patients undergoing laser treatment. Patients underwent initial evaluation consisting of an American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score, prostate specific antigen (PSA), uroflowometry, pressure flow, and transrectal ultrasound for prostate volume. Patients were seen in follow-up at 1, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients with a 2:1 randomization of TVP to laser treatment were enrolled. The laser patients had a mean pre-operative AUA symptom score of 19.0 and scores of 9.0, 6.0 and 5.0 at 1-, 3- and 6-month follow-up. The TVPpatients had a mean pre-operative symptom score of 22.0 and scores of 7.0, 8.0 and 5.0 at 1-, 3- and 6-month follow-up. Mean peak uroflow (PF) rate pre-operative was 10.7 for the laser group and 7.7 for the TVP group. At 1-, 3- and 6-month follow-up, mean PF rates of 13.3, 17.6 and 16.5 were present for the laser patients and 15.0, 17.5 and 14.2 for the TVP group. The differences were not statistically significant. There were 6 complications in the laser patients and 7 complications in the TVP group. Operative time was a mean of 27 min for the laser patients and 46 min for the TVP group, and the difference in operative time was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: At 6-month follow-up the improvement in symptoms score and peak flow rate are comparable in both treatment groups. The electrovaporization procedure required significantly longer to perform than the laser procedure. Long-term follow-up is required to see if these results remain sustainable for electrovaporization therapy.