Premium
Comparison of potassium‐titanyl‐phosphate laser vaporization of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate: update of a prospective non‐randomized two‐centre study
Author(s) -
Ruszat Robin,
Wyler Stephen F.,
Seitz Michael,
Lehmann Kurt,
Abe Constanze,
Bonkat Gernot,
Reich Oliver,
Gasser Thomas C.,
Bachmann Alexander
Publication year - 2008
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 - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2008.07905.x
Subject(s) - medicine , urology , prostate , lower urinary tract symptoms , transurethral resection of the prostate , prospective cohort study , perioperative , international prostate symptom score , hyperplasia , surgery , cancer
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the intermediate‐term clinical efficacy and the rate of complications in 80 W photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) with the potassium‐titanyl‐phosphate laser (Greenlight TM , (AMS, Minnetonka, MN, USA) compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in a prospective non‐randomised two‐centre study. PATIENTS AND METHODS From December 2003 to August 2006, 396 patients (PVP 269, TURP 127) with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia were included in the study. There was a significant difference in mean age (72 years for PVP vs 68 for TURP, P = 0.001). Patients were therefore stratified in age categories (<70, 70–80, >80 years) and compared for perioperative variables, functional outcome and complications, with a follow‐up of up to 24 months. RESULTS The mean prostate size was greater (overall, 62 vs 48 mL, P < 0.001) and mean operative duration longer (overall 72 vs 53 min; P = 0.001) for PVP in all age categories. The rate of intraoperative bleeding (3% vs 11%), blood transfusions (0% vs 5.5%) and capsule perforations (0.4% vs 6.3%), and early postoperative clot retention (0.4% vs 3.9%) was significantly lower for PVP. Hospitalization time was significantly shorter in the PVP group for patients aged <70 years (3.0 vs 4.7 days) and 70–80 years (4.0 vs 5.0 days; P = 0.001). The improvement of peak urinary flow rate was higher after TURP for any age category. The International Prostate Symptom Score and postvoid residual volume during the follow‐up showed no significant difference. After 12 months the overall prostate size reduction was 63% (−30 mL) after TURP and 44% (−27 mL) after PVP. The rate of repeat TURP/PVP was higher in the PVP group (6.7% vs 3.9%, not significant) within the follow‐up of up to 2 years. The incidence of urethral and bladder neck strictures was comparable. CONCLUSIONS PVP was more favourable in terms of perioperative safety. Although patients assigned for PVP were older and had larger prostates, PVP resulted in a similar functional outcome. Further follow‐up is needed to draw final conclusions about the long‐term efficacy of PVP.