Is transurethral vaporization a remake of transurethral resection of the prostate?

Citation
Nr. Netto et al., Is transurethral vaporization a remake of transurethral resection of the prostate?, J ENDOUROL, 13(8), 1999, pp. 591-594
Citations number
17
Categorie Soggetti
Urology & Nephrology
Journal title
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
ISSN journal
08927790 → ACNP
Volume
13
Issue
8
Year of publication
1999
Pages
591 - 594
Database
ISI
SICI code
0892-7790(199910)13:8<591:ITVARO>2.0.ZU;2-1
Abstract
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.