Early Clinical Experience with Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Comparison with Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and Visual Laser Ablation of the Prostate.
10.12701/yujm.1998.15.2.297
- Author:
Jung Hyun KIM
1
;
Ki Hak MOON
;
Hee Chang JUNG
;
Tong Choon PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Urology Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Taegu, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
BPH;
Electrovaporization
- MeSH:
Catheterization;
Catheters;
Electrodes;
Hemostasis;
Hospital Records;
Hospitalization;
Humans;
Laser Therapy*;
Length of Stay;
Prostate*;
Prostatic Hyperplasia*;
Transurethral Resection of Prostate
- From:Yeungnam University Journal of Medicine
1998;15(2):297-305
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Recently, several alternatives have been attempted in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) to reduce morbidity of traditional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Among new modalities, transurethral electrovaporization (TEVP) is considered as a promising alternative. To evaluate the safety and initial efficacy of TEVP using the roller loop electrode (ProSurg Inc. USA) on BPH patients, we compared the results of TEVP with those of TURP and visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP). In this study, a total of 115 patients with symptomatic BPH were underwent TEVP (n=17), TURP (n=59) or VLAP (n=39) since 1995. Before treatment, patients were evaluated with an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the measurement of maximal uroflow rate (MFR) and postvoid residual urine (PVR). After treatment, the operative and hospital records were reviewed. The uroflowmetry and IPSS were re-evaluated 3-10 months after treatment. In clinical outcome of re-evaluation compared to the preoperative parameters, there was a clinically significant improvement in three procedures. TEVP resulted in 62% reduction in IPSS (TURP, 73% : VLAP, 69%), 84% improvement in MFR (TURP, 113% : VLAP, 91%), and 74% reduction in PVR (TURP, 88% : VLAP, 78%). TEVP had shorter duration of hospitalization and catheterization than the others. TEVP was associated with lower rates of treatment-related complication than TURP. In conclusions, TEVP is considered as a useful procedure to treat symptomatic BPH. And, the advantages of TEVP over TURP include excellent intraoperative hemostasis, lower morbidity, shorter hospital stay and simple technique. In addition to this, the advantages over VLAP include lower cost, shorter duration of catheterization and early symptom improvement.
