Transurethral Electrovaporization Of The Prostate Research Articles

Short-term efficacy and safety of second generation bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) for large benign prostate enlargement: Results from a retrospective feasibility study.

BackgroundTo investigate the efficacy and safety of a second-generation bipolar transurethral electro vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) with the new oval-shaped electrode for large benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) with prostate volume (PV) ≥100ml.Materials and methods100 patients who underwent second-generation B-TUVP with the oval-shaped electrode for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) or urinary retention between July 2018 and July 2020 were enrolled in this study. The patients’ characteristics and treatment outcome were retrospectively compared between patients with PV <100ml and ≥100ml.Results17/41 (41.5%) cases of PV ≥100ml and 24/59 cases (40.7%) of PV <100ml were catheterised due to urinary retention. The duration of post-operative catheter placement and hospital-stay of PV ≥100ml (3.1±1.3 and 5.6±2.3 days) were not different from PV <100ml (2.7±1.2 and 5.0±2.4 days). In uncatheterised patients (N = 59), post-void residual urine volume (PVR) significantly decreased after surgery in both groups, however, maximum uroflow rate (Qmax) significantly increased after surgery only in PV <100ml but not in PV ≥100ml. Voiding symptoms and patients’ QoL derived from International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS-QoL (IPSS Quality of Life Index) and BPH Impact Index (BII) scores, significantly improved after B-TUVP in both groups. Catheter free status after final B-TUVP among patients with preoperative urinary retention was achieved in 18/24 (75.0%) and 14/17 (82.1%) cases in patient with <100ml and ≥100ml, respectively. There was no significant difference in post-operative Hb after B-TUVP, which was 97.0±5.4% of baseline for PV <100ml and 96.9±6.1% for PV ≥100ml and no TUR syndrome was observed.ConclusionsThis is the first study investigating short-term efficacy and safety of second-generation B-TUVP with the oval-shaped electrode on large BPE. B-TUVP appears to be effective and safe for treating moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms and urinary retention in patients with large BPE.

Outcome of the TURP-TUVP sandwich procedure for minimally invasive surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with volume larger than 40cc over a 4-year period in Nigeria

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains the reference standard for the surgical treatment of infravesical obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). While TURP has proven long-term efficacy, it has some associated morbidities. This has fuelled the drive to develop alternative cost-effective options with comparable functional outcomes and a superior safety profile. The aim of this study was to evaluate transurethral electro-vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) combined with TURP as a “sandwich” procedure in relieving the obstruction caused by BPH with volume of 40-80cc. The medical notes of 57 consecutive patients with moderate to severe bladder outflow symptoms due to BPH who underwent TURP-TUVP as a sandwich procedure from April 2007 to March 2011 were reviewed for prostatic volume, duration of surgery, volume of irrigation fluid used intra-operatively and post-operative hospital stay. Similarly, the patients IPSS, Qmax and PVR were evaluated pre- and postoperatively. The mean patient age was 64.1 years (SD = 9.1), mean prostatic volume was 56.8 cc (SD = 8.9), mean resection time was 69.5 minutes (SD = 23.9) and mean volume of irrigation fluid (1.5% Glycine) used was 21.5 L (SD = 4.9).The mean post-operative hospital stay was 3.5 days (range 3- 4 days). Overall, 11 (19%) patients had blood transfusion, there was no incidence of TUR syndrome and one mortality was recorded from primary plasminolysis. Compared with baseline values, on follow-up at 3 months the IPSS, Qmax and PVR had improved significantly. Bladder neck stenosis occurred in 3 patients and was successfully treated with bladder neck incision. The sandwich combination of TURP and TUVP for the surgical treatment of BPH with volume larger than 40cc had satisfactory patient safety profile and resulted in significant improvement in IPSS, Qmax and PVR on follow-up at 3 months.

MP-05.06 Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate (TUVP) Using the Olympus Button Vaporization Electrode: A Comparative Study

MP-05.06 Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate (TUVP) Using the Olympus Button Vaporization Electrode: A Comparative Study

The application of evidence-based nursing in transurethral electrovaporization of prostate

Objective To explore the clinic effect on applying the evidence - based nursing to prevent the patients with the skin to pressure sore, the hypothermia, damage of the high frequency electricity knife, deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) by transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVRP) . Methods The application of evidence - based nursing in eight - six cases with BPH by TUVRP were analyze retrospectively. Results Only 1 case with DVT after operated and 1 case is burned by electricity. In 86 cases all of the patients are not complicated with pressure sore and the hypothermia Conclusion The effective measure of nursing intervention, enable the nursing staff to have the profound understanding to each kind of complication prevention necessity, effectively ceased each kind of complication occurrence, improved the operating room nursing quality. Key words: Evidence - based nursing; BPH ; Surgery; Transurethral electrovaporization

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate as an Alternative to Transurethral Resection: A Five-Year Follow-up

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate as an Alternative to Transurethral Resection: A Five-Year Follow-up

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate: Is it any Better Than Standard Transurethral Prostatectomy? 5-Year Follow-Up

Background and Purpose: At present, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is regarded as the most effective treatment for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). In the present randomized study, we compared TURP with transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP). Patients and Methods: A series of 77 BPH patients who underwent operation between 1996 and 2001 were included in the study, 40 who had TURP with a standard resection loop and 32 who had TUVP with a Spike loop. All available patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 1 month and 3 months after the operation (N = 73), and 5 years after the operation (N = 44). The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), sexual function questionnaire, uroflowmetry (Qmax), postvoiding residual urine volume (PVR), and transrectal ultrasonography were used. In addition, postoperative serum sodium concentration, serum hematocrit, duration of catheterization, and operation time were compared. Results: In the TUVP group, the mean IPSS decreased from 17....

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate: Is It Any Better Than Standard Transurethral Prostatectomy? 5-Year Follow-Up

At present, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is regarded as the most effective treatment for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). In the present randomized study, we compared TURP with transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP). A series of 77 BPH patients who underwent operation between 1996 and 2001 were included in the study, 40 who had TURP with a standard resection loop and 32 who had TUVP with a Spike loop. All available patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 1 month and 3 months after the operation (N=73), and 5 years after the operation (N=44). The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), sexual function questionnaire, uroflowmetry (Qmax), postvoiding residual urine volume (PVR), and transrectal ultrasonography were used. In addition, postoperative serum sodium concentration, serum hematocrit, duration of catheterization, and operation time were compared. In the TUVP group, the mean IPSS decreased from 17.3 to 6.5, the PVR from 88 to 35 mL, and the prostate volume from 39 to 24 cc, while the Qmax increased from 6.3 to 12.9 mL/sec and the average flow from 2.6 to 7.9 mL/sec. In the TURP group, the mean IPSS decreased from 17.6 to 6.1, the PVR from 95 to 38 mL, and the prostate volume from 38 to 23 cc, while the Qmax increased from 5.9 to 13.2 mL/sec and the average flow from 2.4 to 8.3 mL/sec. Thus, significant improvements were observed in both groups, and the differences between them 5 years later were not significant P>0.05). Postoperative serum hemoglobin and hematocrit were significantly lower in the TURP group (P>0.05). However, no difference was seen in serum sodium concentrations. Also, there was no difference in the duration of the operations. The catheterization period was 22+/-5.7 hours in the TUVP group, while it was 75.7+/-10.5 hours in the TURP group (P<0.001). When morbidities observed during follow-up were evaluated, no significant difference was seen. The TUVP procedure is as effective as TURP with similar morbidity. The advantages of TUVP are that the urethral catheter is withdrawn earlier, hospitalization is shorter, and bleeding is less. Its disadvantage is that tissue cannot be sampled for histologic diagnosis. In our opinion, in order to exploit the advantages of this technique, TUVP should be preferred in elderly patients without any suspicion of prostate cancer for whom bleeding during operation is a source of risk.

1527: High-Power KTP Photoselective Laser Vaporization Prostatectomy (PVP) Versus Transurethral Electrovaporization of The Prostate (TVP) for The Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): A Prospective Comparative Trial

You have accessJournal of UrologyDiscussed Poster, Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 1:00 - 5:00pm1 Apr 20041527: High-Power KTP Photoselective Laser Vaporization Prostatectomy (PVP) Versus Transurethral Electrovaporization of The Prostate (TVP) for The Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): A Prospective Comparative Trial Alexis E. Te, Jaspreet S. Sandhu, Ricardo Gonzalez, Celeste Egan, and Steven A. Kaplan Alexis E. TeAlexis E. Te More articles by this author , Jaspreet S. SandhuJaspreet S. Sandhu More articles by this author , Ricardo GonzalezRicardo Gonzalez More articles by this author , Celeste EganCeleste Egan More articles by this author , and Steven A. KaplanSteven A. Kaplan More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(18)38735-4AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "1527: High-Power KTP Photoselective Laser Vaporization Prostatectomy (PVP) Versus Transurethral Electrovaporization of The Prostate (TVP) for The Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): A Prospective Comparative Trial." The Journal of Urology, 171(4S), p. 402 © 2016 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 171Issue 4SApril 2004Page: 402 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016 by American Urological AssociationMetricsAuthor Information Alexis E. Te More articles by this author Jaspreet S. Sandhu More articles by this author Ricardo Gonzalez More articles by this author Celeste Egan More articles by this author Steven A. Kaplan More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Transurethral electrovaporization of benign prostatic hyperplasia

目的 评价经尿道前列腺电汽化手术(TVP)治疗前列腺增生症的疗效.方法总结TVP治疗随访6个月以上1 420例前列腺增生症病人的安全性、有效性和疗效.结果平均手术时间为52 min,出血量平均78 ml,术后不需膀胱持续冲洗,平均留置导尿管时间40.7 h,最大尿流率由术前的8.7 ml/s上升至术后3个月的19.7 ml/s和6个月的20.3 ml/s.前列腺症状评分术前为22.3,术后3个月降低至6.8以及6个月时的6.0(P＜0.001) 结论 TVP是治疗良性前列腺增生症安全而有效的方法。

Vaporization of the prostate.

Transurethral resection of the prostate remains the treatment of choice for men with symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement. Concerns regarding the morbidity of this operation have led to the development of alternative surgical procedures. Vaporization of the prostate can be achieved using either laser energy or electrosurgery. The advantage of these approaches is that they allow tissue removal with reduced blood loss. Vaporization techniques have been around for almost a decade and more powerful lasers have recently become available. This has led to a minor resurgence in interest in laser vaporization. We reviewed articles on all forms of vaporization of the prostate published in the 12 months from August 2002. Electrovaporization of the prostate is an effective treatment for men who require surgery for benign prostatic enlargement. The results are well maintained at 5 years follow-up with low reoperation rates. Scanty data are available for the Gyrus (Gyrus Medical Ltd, Cardiff, Wales) bipolar electrovaporization system but preliminary results suggest there is no significant advantage over transurethral resection of the prostate. Early forms of laser vaporization of the prostate are not as effective as either transurethral resection of the prostate or transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate and have a higher retreatment rate. Newer, more powerful lasers have been recently introduced with encouraging initial results in small numbers of patients. Electrovaporization of the prostate is a safe, effective and durable alternative to transurethral resection. Early laser vaporization techniques have high retreatment rates, which limit their cost-effectiveness. Few data are yet available on high-powered lasers for bladder outflow obstruction. Whether any vaporization technique will stand the test of time is unclear.

5-year outcome of a prospective randomized trial to compare transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate and standard transurethral resection

ObjectivesTo update our prospective randomized trial comparing the safety, efficacy, and durability of transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) using the VaporTrode with standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MethodsA total of 104 patients, taken from the waiting list for surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to TUVP (52 patients, mean age 67.5 years) or TURP (52 patients, mean age 70.2 years). In each group, 51, 47, and 40 patients completed 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up, respectively. Of the 104 patients, 27 TURP and 26 TUVP patients completed 5 years of follow-up. ResultsBoth groups were comparable in terms of the mean preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score, quality-of-life score, maximal urinary flow rate, and postvoid residual volume. The follow-up data at 5 years showed a significant and maintained improvement in the mean International Prostate Symptom Score (TUVP: 5.9 ± 6.3 versus TURP: 8.6 ± 7.1, P = 0.16), quality-of-life score (TUVP: 1.1 ± 1.2 versus TURP: 1.7 ± 1.4, P = 0.09), and mean maximal urinary flow rate (TUVP: 21 ± 9 mL/s versus TURP: 17.9 ± 13.1 mL/s, P = 0.17), with decreases in the mean postvoid residual volume (TUVP: 27.3 ± 44.3 mL versus TURP: 10.7 ± 13.1 mL, P = 0.08). Two patients in each group (4%) developed urethral strictures. Two TURP patients (4%) developed bladder neck strictures compared with one TUVP patient (2%). In each arm, 7 patients (13%) underwent reoperation during a 5-year period (approximate reoperation rate: 3% in each arm per year). Postoperatively and during 3 years of follow-up, impotence was reported in 17% of the TUVP group and 11% of the TURP group (P = 0.49); retrograde ejaculation was reported in 72% of the TUVP group and 89% of the TURP group (P = 0.47). ConclusionsOur 5-year follow-up results confirm that TUVP is as effective as standard TURP in the treatment of moderate-size benign prostatic hyperplasia. The reoperation rate and long-term complication rate are comparable and the initial improvement has been maintained during a 5-year period for most patients in both groups.

Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) is effective, safe and durable.

Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) is one of the alternative, minimally invasive procedures to treat BPH with promising initial results. We reviewed the available English literature to evaluate the long-term safety, efficacy and durability of TUVP using various vaporizing electrodes. We performed a MEDLINE keyword search and assessed all prospective randomized studies, which compared TUVP to standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) that reached 1 y follow-up. Data were analysed for improvement of IPSS and Q(max), operation time, hospital stay, perioperative bleeding, postoperative irritative symptoms, long-term side effects and reoperation rate. We reviewed a total of 244 TUVP compared to 259 TURP patients in six prospective randomized studies that reached 1 y follow-up. Less perioperative bleeding, shorter catheterization time (mean of TUVP: 30 h vs TURP: 61 h) and shorter hospital stay (mean of 1.4 days vs TURP: 3.4 days) were reported in the TUVP patients. The improvement in IPSS (71%) and mean Q(max) (20 ml/s) was similar in both groups. The reoperation rate was 2% per year in both vaporization and resection patients. In conclusion, analysis of the prospective randomized trials that reached 1 year follow-up revealed that TUVP is as effective as standard TURP in the treatment of BPH. Long-term side effects and reoperation rates are comparable and the initial improvement was maintained over 1 year for the majority of patients.

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate

Effect of transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate on serum prostate specific antigen concentration

To assess the effect of transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) on serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) concentration. Twenty-five men (mean age 61.7 years) with symptoms of prostatism underwent TUVP. Serum PSA levels were determined before any prostatic manipulation, and again at 1 and 24 h after TUVP. In the first 6 weeks after TUVP, serum PSA was measured every week. Prostatic size was measured by transrectal ultrasonography before and again at 6 weeks after TUVP. The mean serum PSA concentration was significantly higher at 1 and 24 h after TUVP (P<0.001) than before. The PSA level returned to less than the value before TUVP at 2, 3 and 4 weeks afterwards in eight (32%), 13 (52%) and 20 (80%) patients, respectively; five (20%) patients reached the baseline value 6 weeks after TUVP. The mean reduction in prostatic volume 6 weeks after TUVP was 42% and the reduction in tissue volume was significantly correlated with the decrease in serum PSA concentration at 6 weeks (P<0.05). TUVP increases serum PSA levels, the transient elevation persisting for up to 6 weeks but then declining to a stable, low PSA concentration. Therefore, it is important to wait at least 6 weeks to obtain an accurate and meaningful serum PSA level after TUVP.

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate: In reply

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate: In reply

A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Use of Sterile Water as an Irrigation Fluid During Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate

Objective To compare the safety of sterile water and glycine when used as bladder irrigation during transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) in a randomized controlled trial. Patients and methods The study comprised 50 consecutive patients admitted for transurethral prostatic surgery who were randomly allocated to receive bladder irrigation with either sterile water or 1.5% glycine during TUVP. After surgery, serum electrolytes and the presence of free plasma haemoglobin (suggesting haemolysis) were determined and the patients observed for clinical evidence of the transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome. Results There was no significant difference in the level of free plasma haemoglobin between the groups and no difference in serum sodium levels. None of the patients developed any signs of the TUR syndrome. Conclusions Water is a safe irrigant for use during TUVP and has several advantages over 1.5% glycine.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Use of Sterile Water as an Irrigation Fluid During Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate

A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Use of Sterile Water as an Irrigation Fluid During Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate

Two-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective Randomised Trial of Electrovaporization versus Resection of Prostate

Objectives: Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) has become a popular, minimally invasive procedure to treat BPH with promising initial results. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy, safety and durability of TUVP with standard TURP. We report the 2-year follow-up. Methods: 104 consecutive men with BPH admitted for surgery were randomised to TUVP (52 patients, mean age: 67.5 years) or TURP (52 patients, mean age: 70.2 years). 47 patients in each arm completed 2-year follow-up. Results: Follow-up data at 2 years show a comparable, significant and maintained improvement in mean IPSS (TUVP: 4.3 vs. TURP: 6.3), quality of life score (TUVP: 1.1 vs. TURP: 1.7), and maximum flow rate (TUVP: 22.4 vs. TURP: 21.2 ml/s) with fall in mean post-void residual volume (TUVP: 18.8 vs. TURP: 22.8 ml). Postoperative impotence reported in TUVP: 17% vs. TURP: 11% (p = 0.49) and retrograde ejaculation TUVP: 72% vs. TURP: 89% (p = 0.47). Two patients in each arm (4%) had urethral stricture and 2 patients (4%) in the resected group had bladder neck stricture. Four patients in each group required re-operation for residual adenoma during the 2 years (4% in each arm each year). Conclusions: Our 2 years’ follow-up results suggest that TUVP is as effective as standard TURP in the treatment of moderate-sized BPH with comparable durability.

Simultaneous bilateral obturator nerve stimulation during transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate

Transurethral vaporization of the prostate is a new method of electrosurgery used for treating benign prostatic hypertrophy. We observed simultaneous obturator nerve stimulation during spinal anesthesia while the middle lobe of the prostate was being resected. A discussion of why electrovaporization is different from traditional electrocautery devices is presented. Due to the increased power required during electrovaporization, and the arcing at the electrode, a large amount of demodulated, low-frequency current is produced that can stimulate the obturator nerve. This can occur even if the electrode is not close to the lateral bladder wall. The solution to the problem of obturator nerve stimulation, including bilateral obturator nerve blocks using a lower power setting during resection and converting from a regional to general anesthetic with neuromuscular blockade, is discussed.