Purpose: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is still the gold s
tandard method to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Transurethral v
aporization of the prostate (TUVP) is compared with the transurethral resec
tion of benign prostatic hyperplasia,
Patients and Methods: Over a 10-month period, 78 patients presenting with m
oderate and severe symptomatic BPH were randomized into two groups, A total
of 38 patients underwent TURF, and 40 men underwent TUVP, The protocol inc
luded urinary flow rate (Q(max)), symptomatology evaluated by the Internati
onal Prostatic Symptom Score (I-PSS), and an ultrasonographic estimate of t
he postvoiding residual volume (PVR), The TUVP was carried out using a regu
lar loop with the electrical source set at 250 to 300 W in the pure cutting
mode. The same technique was used in the TURF, but the electrosurgical uni
t was set at 50 to 80 W for cutting and 50 W for hemostasis. The mean follo
w-up was 17 months (range 11-23 months).
Results: The data showed significant improvement in the symptom score, maxi
mum flow rate, and postvoiding residual urine volume after treatment (P < 0
.01) in both groups. Comparing the symptom score, there was no difference b
etween the two techniques (P = 0.88), the same occurring with the PVR (P =
0.78), However, the Q(max) was higher after TURF (P = 0.02), The amount of
tissue resected showed no statistical difference between the two techniques
(P > 0.05), Operative time, postoperative irrigation, catheter removal, an
d hospital stay were better with TUVP (P = 0.001), There was a statisticall
y significant difference (P = 0.003) when we compared the occurrence of ret
rograde ejaculation with TURF (32%) and TUVP (65%) The TUVP using a regular
loop, in addition to the advantage of the equipment and technique already
being familiar to urologists, is efficient and reduces capital expenditure.
Conclusion: The TUVP is a remake of TURF, with higher energy offering bette
r results.