Is transurethral vaporesection of the prostate better than standard transurethral resection?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to undertake an evaluation of the comparative efficacy and morbidity of transurethral vaporesection (TUVRP) and standard transurethral resection (TURP), two resection techniques using loops of different thickness and power settings. METHODS: In a prospective study, 185 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction and benign prostatic enlargement were randomized to undergo either TUVRP or standard TURP. Inclusion criteria were benign prostatic enlargement, moderate or severe lower urinary tract symptoms and/or a significant urinary residual (>60 ml), while patients with previous prostatic surgery, prostate cancer or neurogenic bladder disorders were excluded. Prostate size, residual urine, urinary flow rate and symptoms as well as associated bother (using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the American Urological Association Bother Score (AUA-BS)) were assessed preoperatively. Intraoperative blood loss and fluid absorption were evaluated by measuring serum hemoglobin and respiratory alcohol concentration. Patients were followed for 1 year with the evaluation of flow rates, residual urine volumes, symptom scores and complications at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: A significant difference was seen in the weight of the resected tissue (TURP 30.3 g vs. TUVRP 21.9 g, p<0.003). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intraoperative fluid absorption or procedure time between TUVRP and TURP, although more patients in the TURP group required blood transfusions (13 vs. 7) and mean procedure time was longer for TUVRP (71.0 vs. 65.9 min). The postoperative improvements in IPSS, AUA-BS, residual and Q(max) were significant in both groups (p<0.01 for each) but without difference between the two groups. The rate of complications (urinary tract infections, urethral stricture, reintervention rate) during follow-up was the same in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective randomized comparison of the clinical outcome and morbidity of standard TURP versus TUVRP, there were no significant differences in any of the parameters evaluated except for the weight of the resected tissue.     

Time to rebrand transurethral resection of the prostate?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Transurethral resection of the prostate remains the gold standard treatment for benign prostatic obstruction. Owing to the significant morbidity traditionally associated with the procedure, a large number of expensive, high-energy alternative treatments have been developed, which have enjoyed varying degrees of success. At the same time, transurethral resection of the prostate has evolved into a safer operation whilst maintaining its excellent efficacy. This review aims to outline the major advances that have occurred recently in transurethral resection of the prostate. RECENT FINDINGS: Optimizing each stage of transurethral resection of the prostate can result in reduced morbidity. Preoperative treatment with oral antiandrogens and 5-reductase inhibitors appears to reduce intraoperative bleeding, appropriate prophylactic antibiotic regimens reduce postoperative infection rates, improved instrumentation and diathermy delivery can reduce intraoperative bleeding and hence reduce postoperative irrigation requirements, and alcohol monitoring of irrigant absorption can eliminate transurethral resection syndrome. Careful patient selection, meticulous surgical technique combined with an aggressive postoperative irrigation and catheter removal policy can result in transurethral resection of the prostate being performed safely on a day-case basis. SUMMARY: Whilst our attention has been distracted by the many alternative treatments brought to the market over the past decade or so, transurethral resection of the prostate has been undergoing a quiet evolution. With fine tuning of all aspects of the patient journey we can now offer a procedure with excellent long-term efficacy combined with reduced morbidity and inpatient stay.     

Is transurethral resection of the prostate safe and effective in the over 80-year-old?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients over 80 years old. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of all patients over 80 years old undergoing TURP at one institution over a 3.5-year period were studied retrospectively. RESULTS: 31% of patients underwent TURP for symptoms and 68% for urinary retention. The early complication rate was 41%. The late complication rate was 22%. There were no deaths within 30 days of surgery. Of all patients, 80% were satisfied with the outcome of their operation. Of all patients with retention, 80% were able to void with small residual volumes by 6 weeks after operation. CONCLUSIONS: Although TURP in the over 80-year-old male is associated with significant morbidity, it is an effective treatment for urinary symptoms or retention. The majority of patients are able to void afterwards and are satisfied with the outcome of their surgery.     

Bipolar transurethral resection of prostate: a new reference standard?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Transurethral resection of prostate is the gold standard for the surgical management of benign prostate hyperplasia. Bipolar devices allow transurethral resection of prostate with saline irrigation, which lessens water intoxication and negates the need for diathermy pad and unwanted stimulation of the obturator nerves and cardiac devices. Several randomized clinical trials compare the various bipolar devices with conventional monopolar ones. For this review, we search all peer-reviewed published literature databases and present the evidence from them to substantiate its advantages and disadvantages. RECENT FINDINGS: Of the various types of bipolar devices, Gyrus has the longest clinical experience. Bipolar transurethral resection of prostate overcomes the shortcomings of bipolar transurethral prostate vaporization, which includes the absence of histology, postop irritative urinary symptoms and nondurable clinical outcomes. With bipolar transurethral resection of prostate, there is lesser bleeding which leads to shorter resection time and lower fluid absorption. This also enables shorter cathterization time and hospital stay. Transurethral resection syndrome has not been observed. SUMMARY: Bipolar transurethral resection of prostate has demonstrated similar clinical efficacy as monopolar transurethral resection of prostate with shorter catheterization and hospital stay. It eliminates the occurrence of transurethral resection syndrome and minimizes bleeding risk. Long term outcomes from these randomized clinical trials will determine the durability of its clinical efficacy and incidence of urethral strictures.     

Does detrusor underactivity affect the results of transurethral resection of prostate?

International Urology and Nephrology - We aimed to evaluate the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and diagnosed to have...     

Is there a correlation between the outcome of transurethral resection of prostate and preoperative degree of bladder outlet obstruction?

To compare the impact of transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) on symptom scores and maximal flow rates (Qmax) in patients with equivocal bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and definite BOO and to assess the relationship between the surgical outcomes and degree of preoperative BOO, we prospectively evaluated men with lower urinary tract symptoms and bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOI) greater than 20, who were refractory to conventional medical treatment and underwent TURP. Urodynamic evaluation, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), uroflowmetry, post-void residual volume (PVR) check and transrectal ultrasound were performed. 20相似文献   

Does anaesthetic technique affect the outcome after transurethral resection of the prostate?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the choice of anaesthetic (spinal or general) has any influence on outcomes after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 261 patients undergoing TURP between October 1995 and July 1998 were selected for a matched-cohort study. There were 87 complete datasets for cases performed under general anaesthesia and each was matched to two patients (174) from those undergoing spinal anaesthesia. The cohorts were matched by age, physical status score and date of operation. The primary outcome measures were length of stay in the recovery room and satisfaction with postoperative analgesia. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in major outcomes. There was a higher incidence of some minor adverse events in the group having general anaesthesia. Back pain was more common after spinal anaesthesia. CONCLUSION: Spinal anaesthesia was not associated with an improved outcome after TURP. The choice of anaesthesia should be made by the patient, surgeon and anaesthetist on the basis of the known risks of particular adverse events.     

Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate: is it any better than conventional transurethral resection of the prostate?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP), compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as a treatment for men with symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 235 men with symptomatic BPE in four hospitals in the South-East of England were randomized to TUVP (115) and TURP (120). Patients were assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the Short Form-36 (SF-36), EuroQol and sexual function questionnaire, uroflowmetry, ultrasonographic measurement of residual urine volume, pressure-flow urodynamics and transrectal ultrasonography. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the objective and subjective outcome after TURP and TUVP. The latter was associated with a lower transfusion rate than TURP but this did not result in an overall reduction in complications. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. Overall, the two operations produced equivalent results and equivalent complication rates. CONCLUSION: TUVP is an effective treatment for symptomatic BPE, with results equivalent to TURP. TUVP has not led to the expected reduction in early postoperative morbidity or shorter hospital stays.     

Can prostate stents be used to predict the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate in the difficult cases?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Endoprosthesis has been used to maintain luminal patency in several different diseases and is well established in cardiovascular and gastrointestinal pathologies. The usefulness and application in prostatic pathology and benign prostatic hyperplasia are not as clear. This report reviews the development of overactive bladder in patients with bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. It also describes a new application of prostatic stents in patients with combined overactive bladder and bladder outlet obstruction. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the last few decades, interest has been focused on the pathology of overactive bladder due to bladder outlet obstruction. Persistent outlet obstruction can certainly induce overactivity in some cases. However, the significance of preoperative identification of the latter problem is still an open issue, and it is obviously of vital importance to find instruments to identify parameters of prognostic significance. Different prostatic stents have been used for a variety of purposes. Recent studies have demonstrated that prostatic stents are effective in relieving obstruction and urinary retention. However, the role of prostatic stents in bladder outlet obstruction is still not clear when compared with other minimally invasive options. By using a prostatic stent to simulate transurethral resection of the prostate, the risk of post-resection incontinence in patients with combined severe bladder outlet obstruction and severe overactive bladder has been possible to assess before the operation. However, larger controlled clinical studies are needed to corroborate the value of the test. SUMMARY: Prostatic obstruction can induce severe overactive bladder in some cases. A prostatic stent to relieve outflow obstruction and to simulate transurethral resection of the prostate decreases the risk of post-resection incontinence in patients with combined severe bladder outlet obstruction and severe overactive bladder because very high risk patients can be excluded from surgery. The stent test indicates that patients who do not leak and experience reduced symptoms when they are relieved of their outlet obstruction can be advised to have a transurethral resection of the prostate.     

Is laparoscopic bladder diverticulectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate safe and effective? Comparison with open surgery

PURPOSE: In a retrospective nonrandomized study, we compared our experience with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) plus sequential laparoscopic bladder diverticulectomy with a series of combined open bladder diverticulectomies with transvesical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We considered 12 consecutive patients (group A) having 16 diverticula who underwent sequential TURP and transperitoneal laparoscopic bladder diverticulectomy and 13 consecutive patients (group B) having 13 diverticula who underwent open bladder diverticulectomy and transvesical prostatectomy. We evaluated the size and position of the diverticulum, adenoma volume, operative time, postoperative hemoglobin variations, analgesia requirement, complications, postoperative hospital stay, and uroflowmetry results. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences existed between the groups in adenoma volume or diverticulum size or position. However, a significantly longer operative time was recorded in group A. The endolaparoscopic approach proved to be statistically superior to open surgery regarding blood loss, postoperative analgesia requirement, and hospital stay. No intraoperative complications were recorded. In addition, no statistically significant difference was found in uroflowmetry results. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the endolaparoscopic approach has proved to be safe, effective, and minimally invasive and therefore superior to transvesical prostatectomy and open bladder diverticulectomy. Its only disadvantage is the longer operative time.     

Is it oncologically safe performing simultaneous transurethral resection of the bladder and prostate? A meta-analysis on 1,234 patients

Purpose

It is not unusual to encounter the clinical scenario of a male patient undergoing endoscopic treatment for bladder cancer (TURBT) who also needs transurethral resection of prostate (TURP). The aims of this meta-analysis were to understand whether it is oncologically safe or advantageous to combine the two procedures in terms of subsequent overall recurrences with particular interest to that in the prostatic fossa and to understand whether some characteristics of the bladder tumors can influence the recurrence rate.

Methods

A bibliographic search covering the period from January 1950 to December 2011 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Meta-analysis approach was applied comparing prostatic fossa recurrences and total recurrences in simultaneous TURBT and TURP and control. Also, prostatic fossa recurrences and tumors?? grading and multifocality in patients treated with simultaneous TURBT and TURP were analyzed. To investigate to what extent observational time influenced relapses/recurrence, a random effect meta-regression logistic model?Cbased approach was applied. All statistical evaluations were performed using SAS version 9.2 and by RevMan 5.0. An ?? level of 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Overall, there were 1,234 participants in the eight studies considered. The study group consists of 634 patients and the control group 600. Mean age was 67.88 and 61.64?years, respectively, in the study and control groups. In the study group, on a total of 634 patients, 65 recurrences in the prostatic fossa appear. In the control group, on a total of 600 patients, 58 recurrences in the prostatic fossa occurred. Data do not show a statistically significant difference in recurrence in the prostatic fossa between patients treated simultaneously with TURB and TURP and the control group. Meta-analysis does not show a statistically significant difference in recurrence in the prostatic fossa with the increased grading of the neoplasms. But there is a statistically significant increased recurrence in patients with multifocal tumors. There is a statistically significant reduction in recurrence between patients treated simultaneously with TURB and TURP and the control group, but there is no reduction in the recurrence rate in the time.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis emphasized that the two operations could be performed during the same session without any negative oncologic results. The resolution during the same session of bladder outlet obstruction will improve the patients?? quality of life and performing the procedures in the same session sparing the patients from a further anesthesiological maneuvers and the need for a further hospitalization for the surgical resolution of the prostatic obstruction.     

Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate. Are histological findings comparable?

PURPOSE: We investigated if an adequate histological diagnosis can be made from tissue after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and whether it is comparable to transurethral prostate resection (TURP) tissue findings in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 40 HoLEP and 40 age matched TURP tissue specimens from patients who underwent 1 of the 2 procedures between January 2001 and August 2002. Each histological specimen was reviewed by a single pathologist. Preoperative prostate ultrasound volume, total serum prostatic specific antigen and postoperative tissue weight were evaluated. Microscopic histological diagnosis was assessed by standard histological techniques and immunohistochemical evaluation. RESULTS: Patients were comparable in terms of age and preoperative total serum prostate specific antigen. Tissue remaining following the procedure was estimated to be 36.3% of preoperative ultrasound volume after HoLEP and 52.8% after TURP (p <0.001). Incidental adenocarcinoma and high grade PIN of the prostate were diagnosed in a comparable percent of specimens in the 2 groups. Tissue thermal artifacts induced by the laser were mostly due to coagulation. Thus, the alterations were similar to those after TURP. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue quality is altered after HoLEP and TURP. General prostatic architecture was maintained in the majority of HoLEP histological specimens. A moderately higher percent of prostatic tissue obtained by the Ho laser is lost by vaporization and coagulation. Nevertheless, these differences do not seem to alter pathologist ability to detect incidental prostate cancer and PIN.