Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2026
Surgical Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP).
Published on: March 6, 2018
Prospective randomized study of transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate using the thick loop and
R F Talic1, A El Tiraifi, S R El Faqih
1Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine and King Khalid University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Objectives:
Transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate (TUVRP) is a recent modification of the standard transurethral prostatectomy (TURP). The procedure uses one of the novel, thick resection loops coupled to augmented electrocutting energy. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of TUVRP in comparison with TURP.
Methods:
Sixty-eight patients with prostatic outflow obstruction were prospectively randomized between equal TUVRP and TURP treatment groups. Safety parameters evaluated included changes in serum hemoglobin, hematocrit, and sodium 1 and 24 hours after resection. Operative time, catheterization time, and incidence of complications were noted. Efficacy parameters included evaluation by the International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum flow rate.
Results:
Patients of both groups were balanced for the different baseline variables. One hour after TURP, patients had significantly lower levels of hemoglobin, hematocrit, and sodium (P = 0.03, 0.03, and 0. 01, respectively). The prostate resection weight was similar in both groups; however, the difference in the mean operative time was significant (TUVRP group 42.4 minutes and TURP group 35.9 minutes, P = 0.02). The postoperative catheterization time was significantly shorter for the TUVRP group (23.1 +/- 10.3 versus 36 +/- 17.3 hours, P <0.0001). All patients were followed up for an average of 9 months. The International Prostate Symptom Score was 4 +/- 3.4 and 5.6 +/- 3.1 and the maximum flow rate was 19 +/- 6.5 and 15.2 +/- 10 mL/s for the TUVRP and TURP groups, respectively; these differences were statistically significant (P = 0.03 and 0.01, respectively). Complications included urethral strictures (6 patients) and delayed hemorrhage with clot retention (2 patients); no differences in the incidence of complications were noted between the two groups.
Conclusions:
The results of the present study have demonstrated that TUVRP is as safe and efficacious as TURP in the treatment of men with prostatic outflow obstruction. The shorter catheterization time observed after TUVRP may be clinically significant, considering the demand for lower morbidity profiles by patients. The longer operative time in TUVRP was related to the slower motion of the Wing electrode needed to add the advantages of electrovaporization.
