COMPARATIVE EARLY RESULTS OF TRANSURETHRAL ELECTRORESECTION AND TRANSURETHRAL ELECTROVAPORIZATION IN BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA

Citation
M. Cetinkaya et al., COMPARATIVE EARLY RESULTS OF TRANSURETHRAL ELECTRORESECTION AND TRANSURETHRAL ELECTROVAPORIZATION IN BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA, British Journal of Urology, 78(6), 1996, pp. 901-903
Citations number
16
Categorie Soggetti
Urology & Nephrology
Journal title
ISSN journal
00071331
Volume
78
Issue
6
Year of publication
1996
Pages
901 - 903
Database
ISI
SICI code
0007-1331(1996)78:6<901:CEROTE>2.0.ZU;2-0
Abstract
Objective To compare the results of conventional transurethral electro resection of the prostate (TURP) and transurethral electrovaporization (TUEP) in patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pat ients and methods The study comprised 46 patients with moderate or sev ere symptoms of prostatism and a maximal flow rate of <15 mL/s,.Pre-op eratively, all patients underwent a digital rectal examination and the determination of prostatic volume by ultrasonography, and a symptom s core, the maximal flow rate, post-void residual urine, routine biochem ical variables and serum prostate specific antigen were measured. The haematocrit and blood Na+ levels were also determined pre-operatively and again 24 h after the operation. Patients were divided randomly int o two groups; the first underwent a conventional TURF and the second T UEP using 240-300 W of cutting current, Three months after operation, all the variables were remeasured and the values compared with those b efore treatment and between the groups. Results The improvements in sy mptom score, maximum flow rate and residual urine were slightly better after TURP than after TUEP but the differences between treatments wer e not statistically significantly different. However, TUEP used slight ly less irrigant solution, allowed earlier removal of the urethral cat heter, required no blood transfusions and was easier to perform. Concl usion Although the improvements in the objective variables 3 months af ter TUEP were almost the same as after TURP, there were advantages in using less resources; further studies with more patients and a longer follow-up are required to determine the efficacy and safety of this pr ocedure.