Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026
Photoselective Vaporesection of the Prostate via an End-firing Lithium Triborate Crystal Laser
Published on: May 9, 2018
The long-term results of transurethral vaporization of the prostate using plasmakinetic energy
Cevdet Kaya1, Abdullah Ilktac, Ersin Gokmen
1Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey. drckaya@hotmail.com
Objective:
To assess the long-term efficacy and the safety of plasmakinetic vaporization of prostate (PKVP, Gyrus Medical Ltd., Bucks, UK) against standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for symptomatic prostatic obstruction.
Patients And Methods:
Of 75 patients admitted to our clinic with symptomatic prostatic obstruction between 2001 and 2003, 40 who were randomized to undergo either TURP or PKVP, and who had returned for the follow-up, were included in this study. All treated patients completed the 36-months of follow-up; 25 had had PKVP and 15 a standard TURP. After surgery the treatment outcome was evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)) and long-term complications of surgery.
Results:
The two groups had similar baseline characteristics. The improvement in both groups was statistically significant for the IPSS and Q(max) at 24 and 36 months vs the baseline values (P < 0.05). The mean (sd) IPSS decreased from 21 (3.4) to 7.1 (1.5) and 7.6 (1.4) after PKVP and from 22 (3.8) to 5.2 (1.1) and 5.7 (1.2) after TURP, at 24 and 36 months, respectively. The mean Q(max) for the both groups increased significantly from baseline values at 2 and 3 years, respectively, at 20.8 (2.4) and 21.8 (3.1) mL/s after TURP, which was statistically significantly better than after PKVP, at 12.5 (2.1) and 14.4 (2.6) mL/s, respectively (P < 0.05). Although three patients (12%) in the PKVP group had TURP at 14, 20 and 36 months, respectively, for residual adenoma tissue, one patient had an additional operation after TURP. Bulbar urethral strictures occurred in one patient in each group, requiring internal optical urethrotomy. Erectile dysfunction was reported by three patients after PKVP (12%) and by two of 15 after TURP who were potent before surgery (P > 0.05). The retrograde ejaculation rates in patients with erectile function were similar in both groups (56% and nine of 15, respectively; P > 0.05). In the PKVP and TURP groups, 12 (48%) and nine of 15 patients were satisfied overall.
Conclusions:
Although early results showed that PKVP was a good alternative technique among the minimally invasive methods for surgically managing prostatic obstruction, the clinical outcome of PKVP in the long term was not comparable to the results after TURP.
