Cargando…

Comparison of the short-term efficacy and safety of bipolar transurethral electro vaporization and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for moderate and large benign prostatic enlargement

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for moderate [prostate volume (PV) 30–80 ml] and large (≥ 80 ml) benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Male patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hayashi, Yutaro, Yoneyama, Shuko, Takizawa, Akitoshi, Kobayashi, Kazuki, Ito, Hiroki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10061965/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36991392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-023-01215-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (B-TUVP) with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for moderate [prostate volume (PV) 30–80 ml] and large (≥ 80 ml) benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Male patients with lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) or urinary retention who underwent B-TUVP or HoLEP treatment in two regional centers were respectively enrolled. Patient characteristics and treatment outcomes were retrospectively compared between B-TUVP and HoLEP. RESULTS: In patients with moderate and large prostate volume,B-TUVP showed shorter operative time (P < 0.001) and less hemoglobin decrease (P < 0.001) than in HoLEP. In uncatheterised patients, voiding symptoms and patients’ quality of life improved after B-TUVP and HoLEP, but these improvement rates were consistently bigger in HoLEP than in B-TUVP. In catheterised patients, the rate of achieving catheter-free status after surgery was higher in HoLEP than in B-TUVP for patients with PV > 80 ml.(P < 0.001) The incidence of postoperative fever was higher in B-TUVP than in HoLEP for patients with PV 30–80 ml (P < 0.001) but not for those with PV > 80 ml.(P=0.08) The Incidence of postoperative stress incontinence(SUI) was higher in HoLEP than in B-TUVP for patients with moderate and large prostate volume. CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies that investigated the short-term efficacy and safety of second-generation B-TUVP in comparison with HoLEP for moderate and large BPE. Improvement in LUTS and achievement of catheter-free status were predominant in HoLEP, and these outcomes were more prominent in patients with large BPE of PV > 80 ml. However, B-TUVP resulted in less blood loss, shorter operative duration, and less SUI suggesting that B-TUVP is also well-tolerated surgical modality. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-023-01215-8.