Premium
Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate: is it any better than conventional transurethral resection of the prostate?
Author(s) -
McAllister W.J.,
Karim O.,
Plail R.O.,
Samra D.R.,
Steggall M.J.,
Yang Q.,
Fowler C.G.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04073.x
Subject(s) - medicine , transurethral resection of the prostate , prostate , urology , transrectal ultrasonography , international prostate symptom score , sexual function , complication , randomized controlled trial , stage (stratigraphy) , surgery , lower urinary tract symptoms , paleontology , cancer , biology
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.