Related Experiment Videos
Transurethral prostatectomy: a prospective randomized study of conventional resection and electrovaporization in
A A Shokeir1, H al-Sisi, Y M Farage
1Department of Urology, New Jeddah Clinic, Saudi Arabia.
Objective:
To compare transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) with conventional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
Patients And Methods:
Seventy consecutive patients with symptomatic BPH and a prostate size of < 60 g were prospectively randomized between equal treatment groups; one group underwent standard TURP and the other TUVP. Patients were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, giving a mean (SD) duration of follow-up of 14.4 (1.9) months (range 12-17). Variables evaluated included the duration of operation, catheterization and hospital stay, and changes in blood levels of haemoglobin, haematocrit and sodium 1 h after the operation. The American Urologic Association (AUA)-7 symptom score, peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-voiding residual urine volume (PVR) and sexual function were also evaluated during the follow-up.
Results:
Patients of both groups were balanced for the different baseline variables. The mean (SD) operative duration of TUVP was 52 (12.5) min, significantly longer than that of TURP, at 39.7 (8.8) min (P < 0.001). One hour after TURP, patients had significantly lower levels of haemoglobin, haematocrit and Na. The mean (SD) duration of catheterization after TURP was 2 (0.8) days, significantly more than after TUVP, at 1.1 (0.4) days (P < 0.001). The mean (SD) hospital stay was 2.5 (1) days after TURP and 1.5 (0.7) after TUVP (P < 0.001). Compared with baseline values, the AUA-7 symptom score, Qmax and PVR improved significantly in both groups at all intervals of follow-up and there were no significant differences between the groups during the follow-up. None of 15 potent men undergoing TURP and two of 18 potent men undergoing TUVP complained of impotence during the follow-up.
Conclusions:
TUVP is as effective as TURP in the treatment of BPH in men with a prostate size of < 60 g. TUVP has the advantages of less blood loss, less absorption of irrigant and a shorter hospital stay, but it had a significantly longer operative duration.