MP32-01 COMPARISON OF SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF BIPOLAR PLASMAKINETIC TRANSURETHRAL ENUCLEATION AND HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF PROSTATE GLAND GREATER THAN 80ML IN PATIENTS: A RANDOMIZED TRIAL WITH 36-MONTH FOLLOW-UP

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology II (MP32)1 Apr 2020MP32-01 COMPARISON OF SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF BIPOLAR PLASMAKINETIC TRANSURETHRAL ENUCLEATION AND HOLMIUM LASER ENUCLEATION OF PROSTATE GLAND GREATER THAN 80ML IN PATIENTS: A RANDOMIZED TRIAL WITH 36-MONTH FOLLOW-UP YiJun Guo* YiJun Guo*YiJun Guo* More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000876.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of plasmakinetic enucleation (PKEP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of prostates larger than 80ml. METHODS: In this paper, randomized, controlled trial 180 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and a prostate of larger than 80 ml were assigned to plasmakinetic enucleation (PKEP) and holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) from January 2013 to June 2017 in our institution. The data including age, hypertension history, diabetes history, coronary heart disease, IPSS, QOL, prostate volume, preoperative Qmax, prostatectomy time, tissue removal time, overall operation time, resected adenoma weight, bleeding volume, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative IPSS, QOL and postoperative complications such as urinary incontinence, urinary tract infection and postoperative urination were recorded and compared. Patients were followed 12, 24, 36 months after surgery. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline data between the two surgical groups preoperatively. The PKEP group had a longer the prostatectomy time (83.6±12.2 min vs 70.7±8.5 min, p<0.05), the tissue removal time (46.2±8.4 min vs 36.0±8.4 min, p<0.05) and the overall operation time (130.4±15.4 min vs 106.7±12.3 min, p<0.05) than the HoLEP group, which were statistically significant. The Perioperative inadvertent hypothermia (PIH) in patients (5 vs 0, p<0.05) were fewer in the HoLEP group, and the bleeding volume (95.6±25.3 ml vs 88.4±25.1 ml, p>0.05) and resected adenoma weight (72.1±17.6 g vs 68.9±12.8g, p>0.05) were similar between the PKEP and HoLEP groups. The hospital stay (6.0±1.3 d vs 5.5±1.1 d, P<0.05) was observed in the PKEP group and HoLEP group, respectively, which was statistically significant. No significant difference was found in the postoperative IPSS, QOL and the postoperative complications such as the urinary incontinence (32 vs 22, p>0.05), the urinary tract infection (14 vs 16, p>0.05) and the urethral stricture (3 vs 1, p>0.05) between the PKEP and HoLEP groups. At the 12, 24, 36 months follow-up, no significant difference were found in the Qmax between them. There were also no serious complications such as transurethral resection syndrome (TURS), massive hemorrhage and secondary operation in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term follow-up data of this randomized trial confirm that HoLEP and PKEP are both effective and durable surgical interventions for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPE. Given the clinically relevant advantages associated with HoLEP, the operation time and postoperative hospital stay can be improved. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e484-e484 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information YiJun Guo* More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...