These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Is transurethral vaporesection of the prostate better than standard transurethral resection?
    Author: Helke C, Manseck A, Hakenberg OW, Wirth MP.
    Journal: Eur Urol; 2001 May; 39(5):551-7. PubMed ID: 11464036.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to undertake an evaluation of the comparative efficacy and morbidity of transurethral vaporesection (TUVRP) and standard transurethral resection (TURP), two resection techniques using loops of different thickness and power settings. METHODS: In a prospective study, 185 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic enlargement were randomized to undergo either TUVRP or standard TURP. Inclusion criteria were benign prostatic enlargement, moderate or severe lower urinary tract symptoms and/or a significant urinary residual (>60 ml), while patients with previous prostatic surgery, prostate cancer or neurogenic bladder disorders were excluded. Prostate size, residual urine, urinary flow rate and symptoms as well as associated bother (using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the American Urological Association Bother Score (AUA-BS)) were assessed preoperatively. Intraoperative blood loss and fluid absorption were evaluated by measuring serum hemoglobin and respiratory alcohol concentration. Patients were followed for 1 year with the evaluation of flow rates, residual urine volumes, symptom scores and complications at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A significant difference was seen in the weight of the resected tissue (TURP 30.3 g vs. TUVRP 21.9 g, p<0.003). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intraoperative fluid absorption or procedure time between TUVRP and TURP, although more patients in the TURP group required blood transfusions (13 vs. 7) and mean procedure time was longer for TUVRP (71.0 vs. 65.9 min). The postoperative improvements in IPSS, AUA-BS, residual and Q(max) were significant in both groups (p<0.01 for each) but without difference between the two groups. The rate of complications (urinary tract infections, urethral stricture, reintervention rate) during follow-up was the same in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective randomized comparison of the clinical outcome and morbidity of standard TURP versus TUVRP, there were no significant differences in any of the parameters evaluated except for the weight of the resected tissue.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]