Two-year follow-up of a prospective randomised trial of electrovaporization versus resection of prostate.
OBJECTIVES: Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) has become a popular, minimally invasive procedure to treat BPH with promising initial results. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy, safety and durability of TUVP with standard TURP. We report the 2-year follow-up. METHODS: 104 consecutive men with BPH admitted for surgery were randomised to TUVP (52 patients, mean age: 67.5 years) or TURP (52 patients, mean age: 70.2 years). 47 patients in each arm completed 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Follow-up data at 2 years show a comparable, significant and maintained improvement in mean IPSS (TUVP: 4.3 vs. TURP: 6.3), quality of life score (TUVP: 1. 1 vs. TURP: 1.7), and maximum flow rate (TUVP: 22.4 vs. TURP: 21.2 ml/s) with fall in mean post-void residual volume (TUVP: 18.8 vs. TURP: 22.8 ml). Postoperative impotence reported in TUVP: 17% vs. TURP: 11% (p = 0.49) and retrograde ejaculation TUVP: 72% vs. TURP: 89% (p = 0.47). Two patients in each arm (4%) had urethral stricture and 2 patients (4%) in the resected group had bladder neck stricture. Four patients in each group required re-operation for residual adenoma during the 2 years (4% in each arm each year). CONCLUSIONS: Our 2 years' follow-up results suggest that TUVP is as effective as standard TURP in the treatment of moderate-sized BPH with comparable durability.[1]References
- Two-year follow-up of a prospective randomised trial of electrovaporization versus resection of prostate. Hammadeh, M.Y., Madaan, S., Singh, M., Philp, T. Eur. Urol. (1998) [Pubmed]
Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenesOpen Access LicencePrivacy PolicyTerms of Useapsburg
