An Analytical Comparison of Short-term Effectiveness and Safety Between Thulium:YAG Laser Vaporesection of the Prostate and Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.
- Author:
Joon Woo KIM
1
;
Yeon Joo KIM
;
Yoon Hyung LEE
;
Joon Beom KWON
;
Sung Ryong CHO
;
Jae Soo KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Prostatic hyperplasia; Thulium; Transurethral resection of the prostate
- MeSH: Catheterization; Catheters; Humans; Laser Therapy; Length of Stay; Medical Records; Postoperative Complications; Prostate*; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Hyperplasia*; Residual Volume; Retrospective Studies; Thulium; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Ultrasonography; Urinary Incontinence
- From:Korean Journal of Urology 2014;55(1):41-46
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: In recent years, laser surgery has been widely used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A thulium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser was recently introduced for BPH surgery. We compared the effectiveness and safety of Tm:YAG laser vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVaRP) with that of bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2010 to December 2012, 86 patients underwent surgical treatment for symptomatic BPH by a single surgeon. We retrospectively analyzed and compared the medical records of 43 patients who underwent ThuVaRP and 43 patients who underwent bipolar TURP. All patients were assessed by using the International Prostate Symptom Score, transrectal ultrasonography, the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, uroflowmetry, and postvoid residual volume before and 1 month after surgery. All complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: ThuVaRP was superior to TURP in catheterization time (p<0.001) and length of hospital stay (p<0.001). However, operation time was longer with ThuVaRP than with TURP (p<0.001). In patients with a large prostate (>50 g), operation time was much longer with ThuVaRP. One month after surgery, the decrease in PSA was greater (p=0.045) with ThuVaRP than with TURP, and the increase in maximal urine flow rate was greater (p<0.001) with ThuVaRP than with TURP. The postoperative complication transient urinary incontinence was significantly different between the ThuVaRP group (nine cases, 20.9%) and the TURP group (two cases, 4.7%). Other complications were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness and safety of ThuVaRP and TURP were comparable. ThuVaRP is a promising alternative surgical technique to TURP for BPH.
