Comparative Analysis of Conventional Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and Laser Induced Prostatectomy.
- Author:
Woo Chul MOON
1
;
Bo Sang NOH
;
Kyung Keun SEO
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
BPH;
treatment;
comparative analysis;
TURP
- MeSH:
Anesthesia, Local;
Catheterization;
Catheters;
Cost-Benefit Analysis;
Ejaculation;
Fires;
Health Care Costs;
Hemorrhage;
Hospitalization;
Humans;
Incidence;
Lasers, Semiconductor;
Lip;
Male;
Outpatients;
Prospective Studies;
Prostate*;
Prostatectomy*;
Transurethral Resection of Prostate;
Treatment Outcome;
Urethral Stricture
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
1996;37(5):521-530
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laser induced prostatectomy(LIP) has recently been considered as safe alternative to conventional transurethral resection of the prostate(TURP) in the surgical treatment of BPH. However, the value of LIP remains incompletely defined. We herein have performed a prospective study to compare TURP and LIP in treatment efficacy, safety and costs to define the value of LIP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 113 patients with BPH who were candidates of TURP were randomized to undergo TURP or LIP and were adequately followed up for more than 1 year. There were no significant differences in preoperative clinical characteristics between 55 patients who underwent TURP and 58 patients who underwent LIP. For the LIP procedure, Nd:YAG was used in 42 patients and diode laser in 16 patients, respectively. 37 patients were treated by contact LIP only, and 21 with hybrid procedures of contact LIP and noncontact LIP using side firing laser fiber or interstitial laser fiber. Seven patients underwent LIP under local anesthesia at the outpatient department. RESULTS: International prostate symptom score(IPSS) and peak urinary flow rate(Qmax) were significantly improved at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after LIP as well as after TURP. There were no significant difference between TURP group(85.4%) and LIP group(87.9%) in treatment success rate as defined by improvement of IPSS and Qmax as well as patient's content for the surgical outcome. Nine(16.4%) and two(3.6%) of the patients who underwent TURP and none of the patients who LIP underwent developed ignificant bleeding and electrolyte imbalance, respectively. There were no significant difference in postoperative incidence of retrograde ejaculation, infection and urethral stricture between the two groups. Compared to TURP, the LIP procedure required significantly shorter hospitalization(6.8 vs 4.5 days) and catheterization(4.1 vs 2.6 days, all p<0.0l). There was no significant difference in total treatment cost between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: LIP may be comparable to TURP in terms of short term treatment efficacy and cost effectiveness. LIP may be better than TURP in terms of safety and shortened hospitalization and catheterization. Further studies are necessary on long-term outcomes of LIP."
