2165 COMPARISON OF CLINICAL RESULTS BETWEEN BIPOLAR TURP AND HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE (HOLEP) BASED ON THE INITIAL EXPERIENCE IN PATIENTS WITH OBSTRUCTIVE BPH

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy and New Technology III1 Apr 20122165 COMPARISON OF CLINICAL RESULTS BETWEEN BIPOLAR TURP AND HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF THE PROSTATE (HOLEP) BASED ON THE INITIAL EXPERIENCE IN PATIENTS WITH OBSTRUCTIVE BPH Seong Choi and Jae-min Chung Seong ChoiSeong Choi Busan, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author and Jae-min ChungJae-min Chung Busan, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2338AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We compared the surgical results between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Gyrus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with obstructive BPH. METHODS Between March 2007 and July 2011, 370 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to HoLEP group (170 cases; mean age 68.0 years old) or TURP group (200 cases; mean age 69.2 years old). All patients were evaluated by preoperative and postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score(IPSS), peak flow rate(Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume(PVR), measurement of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and transrectal ultrasound prostate volume. Follow up evaluations were performed during visits at 1, 3, 6 months. RESULTS Both groups were comparable in terms of age, pre-operative IPSS, QOL index, urodynamic study results and prostate volume. During operation, decrease in hemoglobin was less in the HoLEP group than in the TURP group (0.92 vs 1.97 g/dl, p < 0.05). The operation time was significantly longer in the HoLEP group than in the TURP group (89.5 vs. 51.3 minutes, p < 0.001). Mean resected weight was 9.3 g (2-47) in the TURP group and 7.9 g (2-44) in the HoLEP group (p = 0.337). The catheterization period (2.1 vs. 4.8 days, p < 0.001) and hospital stay (3.6 vs. 7.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the HoLEP group than in the TURP group. At follow up, Qmax, average flow rate and PVR in two groups improved significantly, and these parameters were not significantly different between the groups after 3 months. CONCLUSIONS Both bipolar TURP and HoLEP were effective in relieving BOO. The estimated blood loss, a catheterization time and hospitalization were less or shorter in the HoLEP group. HoLEP may be a good alternative to the conventional bipolar TURP in patients with obstructive BPH. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e873 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Seong Choi Busan, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Jae-min Chung Busan, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...