PD64-11 THULIUM:YAG LASER VAPORESECTION VERSUS BIPOLAR TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE FOR THE TREATMENT OF BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA: COMPARATIVE STUDY

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology III1 Apr 2018PD64-11 THULIUM:YAG LASER VAPORESECTION VERSUS BIPOLAR TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF THE PROSTATE FOR THE TREATMENT OF BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA: COMPARATIVE STUDY Mohamed Rokba, Mohamed Selim, Mohamed Abdallh, Alaa Elmahdy, and Mohamed Omr Mohamed RokbaMohamed Rokba More articles by this author , Mohamed SelimMohamed Selim More articles by this author , Mohamed AbdallhMohamed Abdallh More articles by this author , Alaa ElmahdyAlaa Elmahdy More articles by this author , and Mohamed OmrMohamed Omr More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.2983AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To compare the safety and effectiveness of Thulium:YAG laser vaporesection (ThuVaRP) versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (B-TURP) for the treatment of patients with symptomatizing large prostates ( > 60 gm); in terms of surgical efficacy and perioperative morbidity. METHODS From January 2016 to October 2017, this study was conducted in 177 patients diagnosed with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).The perioperative parameters, therapeutic effects and complications were compared between the two groups before and 3 months after surgery. Preoperative evaluation included detailed medical history, thorough clinical examination, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate volume, post-voiding residual urinary volume (PVR), PSA level and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Intraoperative evaluation included operative time, resected tissue weights, irrigating fluid volume, blood loss, and intraoperative complications. Postoperative evaluation included the mean hemoglobin and hematocrit differences, catheterization period, hospital stay, postoperative complications and follow up IPSS, PVR and Qmax. RESULTS A total of 177 patients were randomly divided into two groups and managed by ThuVaRP (59, group 1) or B-TURP (118, group 2) with mean age ± SD: ThuVaRP 66 ± 7 and B-TURP 69 ± 7 with no significant difference. There was no significant statistical difference in preoperative variables such as medical condition, IPSS, prostate volume, PVR, PSA and Qmax between the two groups. There were significant statistical differences in the following parameters between the two groups (ThuVaRP vs B-TURP [mean ± SD]): calculated intraoperative blood loss 91 ± 35 vs 260 ± 143 ml (P=0.0001), operative time 117 ± 24 vs 101 ± 29 min (P=0.017), catheterization time 2.7 ± 0.5 vs 3.3 ± 0.8 days (P=0.001) and hospital stay 2.5 ± 0.6 vs 3.2 ± 0.4 days (P=0.0001) respectively. Postoperative hemoglobin, hematocrit drops, hematuria and irrigation time were less in ThuVaRP but with no significant statistical differences. In both groups, there was no need for blood transfusion. Also, TUR syndrome did not occur in any patient. All patients in both groups showed marked improvement in IPSS, Qmax, and PVR after 3 months postoperative. CONCLUSIONS ThuVaRP represents a valuable option for the management of BPH with satisfactory outcomes in terms of safety, blood loss and acceptable complications, but with longer operative time in comparison to B-TURP. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e1223-e1224 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Mohamed Rokba More articles by this author Mohamed Selim More articles by this author Mohamed Abdallh More articles by this author Alaa Elmahdy More articles by this author Mohamed Omr More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...