TUVP联合TURP治疗合并膀胱出口梗阻的前列腺癌

目的:探讨治疗合并膀胱出口梗阻前列腺癌的有效方法。方法:联合应用经尿道前列腺电汽化术(TU-VP)与经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗合并膀胱出口梗阻的前列腺癌患者47例,结合去势术及术后雄激素阻断治疗。结果:47例患者住院时间6~14d,平均9.5d;术后随访6~52个月。国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)由术前的(26.5±4.8)分下降到(8.5±2.2)分(P<0.05);最大尿流率(Qmax)从术前的(4.6±1.5)ml/s上升到(14.5±3.6)ml/s(P<0.05);前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)从术前的(58.1±7.2)μg/L下降到术后3个月的(3.6±1.8)μg/L(P<0.01)。结论:联合应用TUVP与TURP,配合去势术及术后雄激素阻断是治疗合并膀胱出口梗阻前列腺癌的有效方法。     

两种经尿道前列腺切除术治疗良性前列腺增生症的疗效比较

目的比较经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）与经尿道双极等离子前列腺切除术（PKRP）治疗良性前列腺增生症（BPH）的优缺点。方法分别采用TURP（357例）、PKRP（326例）治疗BPH,观察两组患者手术前后国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOLS）、最大尿流率（MFR）、残余尿（RUV）的改善情况以及术后并发症的发生情况。结果两种术式患者术后IPSS、QOLS、MFR、RUV均得到显著改善,组间差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。对Ⅰ～Ⅱ度前列腺增生,两组术式手术时间无差异;对Ⅲ度前列腺增生,TURP组手术时间短于PKRP组（P〈0．01）。两组术式术中切除前列组织重量、术中出血及术后主要观察指标差异均无显著性。TURP组3例发生电切综合症,2例因前列腺包膜穿孔中转开放手术,而PKRP组无上述情况发生。PKRP组术后并发症少于TURP组。结论TURP及PKRP均为治疗BPH的有效手段,PKRP较之TURP术中更为安全,手术后并发症较少,但手术时间较长。     

Post-brachytherapy transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE: We assessed the rate and results of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients previously treated with brachytherapy as monotherapy for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 1998 to May 2003, 600 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with brachytherapy at our institution. Brachytherapy was performed as monotherapy with curative intent for clinically localized prostate cancer without adjuvant treatment in patients with clinical stages T1c (68.4%) or T2a (31.6%) disease. -Iodine and palladium implants were used in 583 and 7 patients, respectively. A real-time interactive implantation technique was used in all but the first 17 patients, who were treated using a preplanned technique. RESULTS: Of the 600 patients 19 (3.1%) underwent TURP after brachytherapy. Among the patients with acute urinary retention the median interval between prostate brachytherapy and urinary retention was 2 months (range 0.5 to 32). No TURP was done within 6 months after implant. The median interval between prostate brachytherapy and TURP was 7 months (range 6 to 41) and median prostate specific antigen (PSA) before TURP was 0.5 ng/ml (range 0.04 to 3.4). In the 19 patients the median weight of resected prostatic tissue was 8 gm (range 2 to 19) and 1 to 11 seeds were removed (median 5). The perioperative and postoperative courses were uneventful. There was no TURP related incontinence. With a median followup of 28 months after brachytherapy (range 7 to 48) no patient had clinical or biochemical evidence of disease progression, and for the group of 19 patients who underwent TURP median serum PSA at the end of followup was 0.38 ng/ml (range 0.03 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: After brachytherapy as monotherapy, TURP can be done safely if indicated. In our experience the resection of prostatic tissue along with a limited number of seeds at least 6 months after implantation did not impair PSA based biological and clinical results of brachy-therapy.     

经尿道气化结合电切术治疗前列腺增生

目的探讨经尿道前列腺气化电切术（TUVP）联合经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）治疗前列腺增生的疗效。方法回顾性分析TuvP联合TURP治疗前列腺增生症602例的临床资料。结果手术时间30．150min,平均70min。术中输血5例（0．8％）,术中前列腺包膜穿孔7例（1．1％）,出现电切综合征（TURS）10例（1．7％）,因术中出血中转开放手术3例（0．4％）。无永久性尿失禁病例。术后随访378例,随访时间3-120个月,IPSS由术前21．1下降至7．6;最大尿流量由术前10．3ml／s增加至19．3ml／s。结论联合应用TUVP和TURP治疗前列腺增生症具有效果好、安全性高及并发症少等优点,值得临床推广应用。     

经尿道前列腺电切术和(或)汽化切除术治疗良性前列腺增生的临床经验

目的:探讨经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)和经尿道前列腺汽化切除术(TUVP)单独或联合治疗BPH的安全性和疗效。方法:2009年6月~2012年6月采用TURP和/或TUVP治疗BPH患者376例,其中TURP组116例,TUVP组125例,TURP与TUVP联合组(联合组)135例。经直肠B超检查计算三组前列腺重量分别为(81.3±22.8)、(78.5±21.5)和(82.2±20.6)g。比较三组之间手术时间、术中出血量、切除组织量、术后并发症等指标,以对比手术安全性;比较术前及术后3个月的Qmax、剩余尿量(RUV)、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)等指标,以对比其临床疗效。结果:TURP组、TUVP组和联合组的手术成功率分别为98.3%(114/116)、98.4%(123/125)和99.3%(134/135)(P0.05);平均手术时间分别为(43.2±12.4)min、(55.3±14.5)min和(47.4±13.1)min(P0.05);平均出血量分别为(220.4±50.5)ml、(85.5±24.6)ml和(100.4±30.2)ml(P0.05);平均切除组织质量分别为(49.2±11.3)g、(52.7±13.3)g和(50.4±12.6)g(P0.05);经尿道前列腺电切综合征(TURS)发生率分别为2.6%(3/116)、0.8%(1/125)和0.7%(1/135)(P0.05);术后暂时性尿失禁发生率分别为1.7%(2/116)、4.8%(6/125)和1.5%(2/135)(P0.05);术后3个月尿道狭窄发生率分别为1.7%(2/116)、4.0%(5/125)和1.5%(2/135)(P0.05)。三组患者术后3个月的Q max均较术前明显增加(P0.05),术后IPSS、QOL、RUV均较术前明显下降(P0.05),三组之间各指标比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:TURP、TUVP单独或联合均为治疗BPH的有效方法,TURP联合TUVP治疗兼有两者的优点,切割速度快,止血彻底,安全高效,并发症少,是治疗BPH的更好选择。     

Ex-vivo comparison of the haemostatic properties of standard transurethral resection and transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate

OBJECTIVE: To compare the haemostatic properties of standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and transurethral vaporization resection of the prostate (TUVRP), as perioperative bleeding is still regarded as the major complication of prostate resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Isolated blood-perfused porcine kidneys were used to determine the haemostatic efficacy of TURP and TUVRP (using two different electrodes). Bleeding was quantified precisely in relation to tissue ablation for the two techniques, and specimens were evaluated histologically. RESULTS: Both TUVRP groups had significantly less bleeding (P = 0.005) than the TURP group for a standardized ablation volume of perfused kidney tissue (18.9, 19.5 and 24.1 mL/min, respectively). The different TUVRP electrodes had no significant haemostatic differences. The histology showed significantly (P = 0.03) larger coagulation zones for the TUVRP groups than for standard TURP. CONCLUSIONS: TUVRP ex-vivo was associated with significantly better haemostasis than TURP. The haemostatic properties of different active electrodes for TUVRP seem to be equivalent.     

Transurethral incision versus transurethral resection of the prostate. A subjective and objective analysis.

A prospective study was undertaken comparing transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) with transurethral resection (TURP) in the treatment of 220 patients with urinary obstruction caused by a small, benign prostate. Patients were managed alternately by TUIP and TURP, and their symptoms and urodynamic findings evaluated before and after surgery. Subjectively and objectively, the results were comparable in both groups. Pre- and post-operative complications were significantly less for the TUIPs than the TURPs. TUIP was significantly better than TURP in terms of shorter operating time, duration of hospitalisation and reduced need for transfusion. We recommend TUIP as the operation of choice for the relief of obstruction in the presence of a small, benign prostatic enlargement.     

HoLEP与TURP治疗BPH的并发症比较

目的:比较经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)与经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)在治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)中的并发症差异。方法:将112例BPH患者分为两组,分别采用HoLEP(A组)或TURP(B组)治疗,比较两组患者术后早期并发症及随访1年后的并发症差异。结果:A组术后早期并发症发生率均低于B组,其中术后尿路刺激症状、拔管后血尿差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。随访1年后,A组远期并发症低于B组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:HoLEP治疗BPH的术后早期并发症及远期并发症比TURP更低,疗效更好。     

Transurethral resection versus transurethral incision of the prostate. A prospective randomized study

In this ongoing study, patients with an estimated prostate size of no more than 20 gm are randomized to undergo either transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or transurethral incision (TUIP) at the 6 o'clock position. To date, 93 patients have been included, and 3 months postoperatively, 80 to 90 per cent of the patients in each group reported improvement. There was also a significant decrease in symptom scores and a significant increase in maximum urinary flow rate, with great variation within each group but without difference between the groups. In both groups, there appears to be some deterioration over time. Operating time, estimated blood loss, time to catheter removal postoperatively, and duration of postoperative hospital stay were all significantly in favor of TUIP. Loss of ejaculation was reported by 37 per cent of patients after TURP and by 13 per cent after TUIP (not statistically significant). There was no difference between the groups in the need for further surgery. Therefore, TUIP is recommended as an alternative to TURP in patients with small prostates.     

剥离式经尿道前列腺切除术与经尿道前列腺电切术治疗良性前列腺增生的比较研究

目的:比较经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)与使用专用前列腺增生腺体剥离器行剥离式经尿道前列腺切除术(剥离式TURP,TUERP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的疗效与安全性。方法:BPH患者630例,均具备手术指征,随机分为TURP组(305例)和剥离式TURP组(325例)。术前两组年龄、前列腺体积、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、最大尿流率(Qmax)数值比较,差异无统计学意义(P均0.05)。记录两组手术时间、手术切除率、术后需要持续膀胱冲洗时间、术后生活质量评分(QOL)、手术并发症数据,进行统计学分析。结果:手术后的资料分析显示,TUERP手术切除率优于TURP组的手术切除率[(60.1±12.3)%vs(47.0±13.3)%,P0.05)];TUERP组平均手术时间比TURP组短[(40.4±14.2)min vs(57.9±15.9)min,P0.05];术后冲洗时间较短[(2.2±1.1)d vs(2.7±0.6)d,P0.05]。TUERP组手术前后血清Na+和血红蛋白浓度变化无统计学意义,TURP组血清Na+和血红蛋白浓度变化有统计学意义[血Na+:(141.2±3.5)mmol/L vs(136.9±4.7)mmol/L,P0.01,血红蛋白:(137.6±8.8)g/L vs(124.8±9.6)g/L,P0.01]。术后3个月,两组的IPSS评分、QOL评分、Qmax评分均较术前有显著改善(P均0.01),组间比较无显著性差异。(P0.05)。结论:剥离式TURP治疗BPH和TURP比较,具有手术时间短、手术切除率高、术中出血少、术后恢复快、并发症少等优点,在临床上有良好的应用前景。     

Seeking evidence that cell kill guided thermotherapy gives results not inferior to those of transurethral prostate resection: results of a pooled analysis of 3 studies of feedback transurethral microwave thermotherapy

PURPOSE: We compared ProstaLund Feedback Treatment (PLFT) to transurethral prostate resection (TURP) in terms of efficacy and safety in a pooled analysis of 3 clinical studies with 1-year followup. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall raw data on 183 patients with PLFT and 65 with TURP were pooled. All studies had identical inclusion criteria, and the efficacy and safety of the method were evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urine flow (Qmax), responder rate, bother score, prostate volume reduction and adverse events. RESULTS: The response rate was 85.3% and 85.9% in the PLFT and TURP groups, respectively. One-sided 95% CI analysis showed the noninferiority of PLFT vs TURP for this variable. Mean International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly decreased in the PLFT and TURP groups after 12 months (from 20.9 to 6.4 and 20.7 to 7.1, respectively). The 1-sided upper 95% CI of PLFT was within the noninferiority definition compared with that of TURP. The bother score decrease in the PLFT and TURP groups was not significant different (70.9% and 64.0%, respectively). An increase in Qmax from 7.7 to 16.1 ml per second 12 months after PLFT was noted, while the improvement in Qmax in the TURP group was higher (from 7.5 to 18.6 ml per second). The 1-sided lower 95% CI was close (0.76) but it did not attain the predetermined level of noninferiority (0.80). Mean transurethral ultrasound determined volume 12 months after PLFT and TURP was reduced by 32.8% and 58.1%, respectively. A significant correlation between the transurethral ultrasound determined prostate volume reduction and estimated cell kill was found (r = 0.456, p <0.000001). Serious adverse events with causality occurred in 15.4% of patients with TURP compared with 6.0% in those with PLFT (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Combined experience from our pooled analysis indicates that PLFT challenges TURP in terms of efficacy and safety after 1 year of followup.     

Visual Laser Ablation of the Prostate and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

For the past 50 years, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the most common treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The authors have conducted visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) for BPH as a minimum invasive surgery. The results were compared with those of VLAP, VLAP+transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP), and TURP as other treatments for BPH. In the VLAP group, 50 of 52 (96.2%), 36 of 40 (90.0%) and 31 of 36 (86.1%) were categorized as having more than a Fair Response (FR) at 3, 6 and 12 months, postoperatively. In the VLAP+TUIP group, 24 of 29 (82.8%), 19 of 22 (86.4%) and 9 of 11 (81.8%) were classed as having more than a FR at 3, 6 and 1 2 months, postoperatively. Forty–one of 42 (97.6%), 1 7 of 1 7 (100.0%) and 6 of 6 (100.0%) patients reaction to TURP was more than FR in overall response at 3, 6 and 12 months, postoperatively. The need for a blood transfusion, perforation of the prostate capsule and transit incontinence persisting for more than 1 month occurred in 1 of 45 (2.2%), 1 (2.2%) and 4 (8.9%) patients in the TURP group. Bladder neck contracture was seen in 4 of 52 (7.7%) in the VLAP group. Average postoperative catheter duration was shorter in the VLAP+TUIP (5.7 ± 8.4 days) than in the VLAP group (10.3 ± 10.4 days). Although TURP remains the standard treatment for BPH, VLAP results in less morbidity compared to TURP. VLAP with TUIP appears to lessen the risk of postoperative urinary retention and provide better results in longer follow–up studies.     

经尿道手术治疗小体积前列腺增生术式比较

目的:探讨经尿道手术治疗小体积良性前列腺增生(BPH)的手术方式,以提高手术疗效。方法:总结经尿道手术治疗小体积BPH52例的临床资料,12例单纯经尿道前列腺电切(TURP),18例TURP加经尿道膀胱颈切开术(TUIBN),22例TURP加经尿道膀胱颈电切术(TURBN)。以国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、最大尿流率(Qmax)、残余尿(PVR)对3组不同手术方式的疗效进行比较分析。结果:单纯TURP组:术后有3例并发膀胱颈孪缩,术后IPSS为(12.2±3.2)分,Qmax为(11.7±2.6)ml/s,PVR为(27.6±13.0)ml。TURP+TUIBN组:术后1例并发膀胱颈挛缩,术后IPSS为(8.6±3.2)分,Qmax为(16.7±3.0)ml/s,PVR为(20.0±8.0)ml。TURP+TURBN组:术后IPSS为(6.2±3.0)分,Qmax为(22.7±3.1)ml/s,PVR为(8.0±4.0)ml。3种术式比较,术前IP-SS、Qmax、PVR各组间差异无显著性(P>0.05),而术后IPSS、Qmax、PVR各组间差异有显著性(P<0.01)。TURP+TUIBN疗效优于单纯TURP,TURP+TURBN疗效最佳。结论:经尿道手术治疗小体积BPH,TURP+TURBN疗效比TURP+TUIBN疗效更确切,应作为首选术式。手术的关键是既要切除增生的腺体,也要彻底切除膀胱颈部的病变组织。     

TURP术后继发性大出血15例分析

目的　探讨经尿道前列腺电切术 (TURP)术后继发性大出血的原因。方法　回顾性分析 70 0例前列腺增生症行经尿道前列腺电切术后 ,15例继发大出血的临床资料。结果　 15例切除前列腺组织质量平均为 2 3.3g,手术时间平均为 4 0min。继发性出血多发生于术后第 2天 ,最长 14d ,平均 4 .9d。手术出血量平均为 2 71.4mL ,继发性出血时清除膀胱内血块平均 30 0g。前列腺创面组织病理检查为炎症肉芽组织。结论　前列腺创面感染和腹压增高是TURP术后继发性大出血的主要原因。     

Comparison of photoselective vaporization and standard transurethral resection of the prostate on urodynamics in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Objectives:   To compare photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Methods:   Patients were enrolled in a prospective non-randomized trial and underwent PVP ( n  = 78) and TURP ( n  = 51). Primary outcome variables included: International Prostate Symptom Score, quality-of-life score, urinary peak flow and post-void residual urine volume at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were urodynamic variables, including the index of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and detrusor contractility.
Results:   Improvement in all outcome variables after PVP was comparable to that after TURP within 12 months. Outcome based on urodynamic parameters was also similar. Pre/post median value of the BOO index was 63/2 in the PVP group and 61/5 in the TURP group. Pre/post rate of detrusor overactivity was 49%/27% in the PVP and 53%/29% in the TURP group. There was minimal change in detrusor contractility. Overall, morbidity was comparable in the two groups.
Conclusions:   The 12-month outcome after PVP is similar to that of TURP with an effective relief from BOO and detrusor overactivity and minimal change in detrusor contractility.     

腔内技术治疗高龄及高危良性前列腺增生的应用(附283例报告)

目的:探讨和总结腔内治疗技术在高龄和高危良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者中应用的安全性、有效性和治疗经验。方法:采用腔内治疗技术,包括经尿道等离子体前列腺电切术(transurethral plasmakinetic resectionof prostate,PKRP)和经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of the prostate,TURP),治疗高危(包括合并肾积水、肾功能不全、心功能不全、脑梗塞、慢性呼吸功能障碍、中重度贫血、糖尿病、膀胱肿瘤等疾病或腺体>80 g)、高龄(年龄>70岁)BPH患者283例,其中TURP组112例,PKRP组171组。结果:所有患者术后随访1~30个月。TURP组的国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)和残余尿量(RUV)由术前的(27.5±2.8)分、(5.5±1.0)分和(75.0±20.0)ml下降至术后的(5.8±1.2)分、(1.0±0.5)分和(8.0±3.0)ml,而最大尿流率(Qmax)由术前的(6.5±2.0)ml/s上升至术后的(18.5±1.5)ml/s(P均<0.05);PKRP组的IPSS、QOL和RUV由术前的(28.2±2.2)分、(5.5±1.0)分和(80.0±20.0)ml下降至术后的(5.4±1.6)分、(1.0±0.5)分和(7.0±3.0)ml,而Qmax由术前的(6.8±2.1)ml/s上升至术后的(20.0±1.5)ml/s(P均<0.05)。两组的治疗效果之间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而PKRP组术后并发症发生率较TURP组少(P<0.05)。结论:年龄在70岁以上伴有心肺、脑肾等重要脏器合并症的高龄及高危BPH患者,经腔内技术治疗,特别是以PKRP治疗,在全面的围手术期准备护理、熟练的手术操作、有效控制手术时间及术后密切监护、加强护理的情况下,具有出血少、安全性高、并发症少、疗效确切等优点。     

Transrectal ultrasound with separate measurement of the transition zone volume predicts the short-term outcome after transurethral resection of the prostate

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the volume of prostatic adenomas as assessed by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) influenced the outcome after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: TRUS with total prostate and transition zone (TZ) volume determinations was performed preoperatively in 298 consecutive patients undergoing TURP for benign prostatic hyperplasia without prior urodynamic evaluation. Postoperatively, the outcome of surgery was stated as excellent (no or minor remaining symptoms), improved (but with some remaining symptoms), or failure (the same or aggravated symptoms) according to a patient-administered questionnaire. Six possible risk factors were evaluated: TZ volume 20 cc or less, neurologic disorders, previous TURP/transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP), diabetes, indwelling catheter, and age older than 80 years. RESULTS: Thirty patients (10.1%) had treatment failure, 45 (15.1%) improvement, and 223 (74.8%) had excellent outcome. After subdivision into preoperative TZ volume of 20 cc or less and greater than 20 cc, it was found that the outcomes of 20.9% (n = 19) were failures if the TZ volume was 20 cc or less but only 5.3% (n = 11) if the TZ volume was greater than 20 cc. Additional independent risk factors for failure were neurologic disorders and previous TURP/TUIP. When all patients with risk factors were excluded (TZ volume 20 cc or less, neurologic disorders, previous transurethral surgery, and diabetes), the risk of failure was 3.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a preoperative TZ volume greater than 20 cc and no history of neurologic disorders, previous TURP/TUIP, or diabetes had a very high chance of favorable outcome after TURP, even though no pressure/flow evaluation had been performed preoperatively.     

Surgical outcomes for men undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate

PURPOSE: We reviewed outcomes for men with a history of transurethral prostate resection who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 26, 1998 and December 2006, 3,061 men underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our institution. A retrospective review showed that 119 had a history of transurethral prostate resection. These men were compared to randomized matched controls with regard to operative and postoperative outcomes. The matching criteria used to randomly select patients were clinical stage, preoperative prostate specific antigen and biopsy Gleason score. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD age in the groups with and without transurethral prostate resection was 66.2 +/- 5.6 and 60.7 +/- 7.0 years, respectively (p <0.01). Mean estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, pathological prostate volume and reoperation rate were statistically similar between the groups. Mean length of stay for the groups with and without transurethral prostate resection was 6.5 +/- 3.0 and 5.29 +/- 2.3 days, respectively (p <0.01). Mean operative time for the groups with and without transurethral prostate resection was 179 +/- 44 and 171 +/- 38 minutes, respectively (p = 0.02). Positive margins were seen in 21.8% and 12.6% of the patients with and without transurethral prostate resection, respectively (p = 0.02). A total of 64 complications were seen in patients with a history of transurethral prostate resection compared to 34 in those without such a history (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We report that patients with a history of transurethral prostate resection who undergo laparoscopic radical prostatectomy have worse outcomes with respect to operative time, length of stay, positive margin rate and overall complication rate. This subset of patients should be made aware of these potential risks before undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

Advantages of transurethral rotoresection versus standard transurethral resection in the management of benign hyperplasia of the prostate

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The endourologic community is in search of safer and efficient alternatives to conventional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). This research compared the efficacy of two transurethral resection techniques - conventional loop and rotoresection - in the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2000 through December 2001, we randomized 128 BPH patients aged 55 to 74 years (average 61.4 +/- 2.7 years), all complaining of symptoms for prostatism for 1 to 14 years (average 4.5 +/- 1.5 years), to either transurethral rotoresection (TURotor; N = 58) or TURP (N = 70). The mean ages in the two groups were 67.53 +/- 7.21 years and 62.93 +/- 6.43 years, respectively. The diagnosis of BPH was made on the basis of patient history, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography, uroflowmetry, and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) concentration. Three months after surgery, we again measured the residual urine volume, uroflow, IPSS, and prostate size by ultrasonography. RESULTS: The TURotor took 30.1 +/- 10.2 minutes with an intraoperative blood loss of 130 +/- 25 mL. During the immediate postoperative period, an insignificant amount of blood was visible in the urine and irrigation fluid. We removed the catheter at 1.8 +/- 0.69 days. At 3 months' follow-up, the maximum uroflow rate (Q(max)) had increased to 19.87 +/- 6.77 mL/sec, and the residual urine volume had fallen to 38.75 +/- 18.84 mL. The average TURP lasted 42.1 +/- 13.2 minutes, or almost 30% longer than TURotor. The intraoperative blood loss averaged 21050 mL. The catheter was removed in 2.2 +/- 0.78 days. At 3 months, the Q(max) was 20.78 +/- 6.56 mL/sec, and the average amount of residual urine had fallen to 35.48 +/- 8.71 mL. CONCLUSION: Rotoresection is a promising alternative to conventional TURP because it affords almost bloodless, 30% faster removal of prostate tissue.     

Randomized study of transurethral resection of the prostate and combined transurethral resection and vaporization of the prostate as a therapeutic alternative in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In recent years, various minimally invasive alternatives to transurethral resection have become available for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Transurethral electrovaporization has become popular, with reported improvements in subjective and objectives measures, but a high rate of postoperative irritative symptoms and lack of tissue for histologic examination are the two most commonly reported disadvantages of this procedure. To decrease the postoperative irritative symptoms while minimizing intraoperative and postoperative bleeding and also to obtain tissue samples, we have combined the techniques of vaporization, which was termed "vapor-cut." The aim of this randomized study was to compare the efficacy and safety of vapor-cut with those of the gold standard, transurethral resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 100 consecutive men (mean age 63.5 +/- 3.4 years) with moderate to severe symptoms of prostatism were randomized to receive transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or vapor-cut since November 1997. Adverse events during the procedure, including serial changes in both serum hematocrit and sodium and postoperative irritative symptoms, were recorded after removal of the urethral catheter. Preoperative and postoperative symptom scores and maximum flow rates (Qmax) were obtained from all patients. The volume of the prostate was measured preoperatively and postoperatively using transrectal ultrasonography. The mean follow-up of the patients was 6.7 months (range 6-10 months). RESULTS: The mean operative times for the vapor-cut group and the TURP group were 48.2 minutes and 42.7 minutes, respectively (P > 0.05). In the TURP group and the vapor-cut group, the International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS) decreased from 21.6 to 5.0 (P < 0.01) and from 19.4 to 4.0 (P < 0.01), respectively, at 6 months. The Qmax increased from 9.2 +/- 2.6 mL/sec to 24.6 +/- 3.4 mL/sec (P < 0.01) in the TURP group and from 7.9 +/- 2.1 mL/sec to 26.7 +/- 3.7 mL/sec (P < 0.01) in the vapor-cut group. The mean reductions in the weight of the prostate were 49.8% in the TURP group (P < 0.05) and 53.6% in the vapor-cut group (P < 0.05). Both catheterization time and hospital stay were significantly shorter for the vapor-cut group (P < 0.05). The decreases in the mean serum sodium concentration were statistically insignificant in both groups. However, the decrease in the mean hematocrit was statistically significant in the TURP group but not in the vapor-cut group. No patient in either group had the transurethral resection syndrome or required blood transfusion. After removal of the urethral catheter, irritative voiding symptoms, usually associated with frequency, were greater in those patients treated with TURP than in those having vapor-cut. None of the patients demonstrated sphincteric incontinence, bladder neck contracture, or urethral stricture. CONCLUSION: From our preliminary experience, vapor-cut seems to give results comparable to those of TURP. Because there is almost no bleeding during vapor-cut, the procedure is performed under excellent visibility, which permits more rapid and effective resection.