A Comparison of Outcomes between Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and High Power Potassium-titanyl-phosphate Laser Vaporization of the Prostate.
- Author:
Seung Chul KANG
1
;
Byeong Kuk HAM
;
Se Hong PARK
;
Ki Won KO
;
Duck Ki YOON
;
Du Geon MOON
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. dgmoon@korea.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Benign prostatic hyperplasia;
Complication;
Potassium titanyl phosphate laser;
Transurethral resection of prostate
- MeSH:
Contracture;
Dysuria;
Hospitalization;
Humans;
Laser Therapy;
Length of Stay;
Medical Records;
Neck;
Operative Time;
Prevalence;
Prostate;
Prostatic Hyperplasia;
Retrospective Studies;
Transurethral Resection of Prostate;
Urethral Stricture;
Urinary Bladder;
Urodynamics;
Volatilization
- From:Korean Journal of Andrology
2009;27(1):42-48
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold standard for the surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), but the procedure's limitations are its invasiveness and the high prevalence of complications. Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) using an 80w high power potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser has recently been developed as a less invasive treatment. We assessed the efficacy of PVP as an alternative to TURP for the treatment of BPH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of 324 patients who were surgically treated for BPH from July 2005 to December 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Among the 324 patients, 190 patients of Group I were treated by TURP and 134 patients of Group II were treated by PVP. Before treatment, assessing the serum PSA level transrectal ultrasound and urodynamic study were done. The primary efficacy parameters were the postoperative international prostatic symptom score and the uroflow parametersat 6 months after the operation. The secondary efficacy parameters were perioperative factors such as the duration of the hospital stay, the operative time and the catheter-indwelling period. Any adverse reactions were monitored. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the basal characteristics of the study subjects between both the groups. The primary efficacy parameters, the IPSS, the Qmax and thepostvoid residual urine volume were significantly improved in both groups, but there were no significant differences between both the groups. In group II, the perioperative parameters such as the operation time, the hospitalization day and the catheter-indwelling periodwere significantly shorter than those of group I (p<0.05). But the urethral complications such as urethral stricture, dysuria and bladder neck contracture were more common in group II. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that PVP using an 80w high power KTP could be an alternative for TURP in terms of efficacy. For the general, safe use of PVP, PVP should be carefully done until the causes of the urethral complications of PVP are determined.
