Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate vs. transurethral resection. Results of a multicentric, randomized clinical study on 150 patients

M. Gallucci, P. Puppo, M. Perachino, P. Fortunato, G. Muto, G. Breda, A. Mandressi, G. Comeri, C. Boccafoschi, F. Francesca, S. Guazzieri, G. L. Pappagallo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aim of the Study: To evaluate clinical, urodynamic efficacy and safety of TURP and TVP in patients with symptoms due to obstructive benign prostatic hypertrophy with a prospective multicentric randomized study. Materials and Methods: 150 patients with BPH, urodynamically obstructed, were randomized to receive TURP or TVP. At the end of the recruitment phase, 80 patients underwent TURP and 70 patients underwent TVP. Patients were clinically evaluated by the I-PSS score at months 0, 1, 3, 6 and 12. Preoperative evaluation included complete blood routine examination, PSA, transrectal ultrasound and pressure/flow studies. Pressure/flow studies were also performed after 3 months. Results: There was no statistical difference between groups in any of the preoperative parameters. All patients were considered urodynamically obstructed at preoperative pressure studies. As for catheter days and hospitalization days, statistical differences between TVP and TURP were found; catheter days were 2.71 days (SE 0.12) in the TURP group vs. 1.9 (SE 0.24) in the TVP group (p <0.000). Hospitalization was 4.7 days (SE 0.22) after TURP and 3.9 days (SE 0.24) after TVP (p <0.000). Mean preoperative I-PSS score was 18.84 and 18.19 in the TVP and TURP groups, respectively. At 3, 6 and 12 months, IPSS was 5.52 and 5.50, 3.77 and 4.94, 3.52 and 4.04 for TURP and TVP, respectively. Mean preoperative peak flow rate (PFR) was 8.78 and 7.26 ml/s for TURP and TVP, respectively; after 3, 6 and 12 months, PFR was 19.21 and 18.8, 20.77 and 20.13, 20.30 and 20.31 ml/s, respectively. After 3 months, 6 patients in the TURP group (7.5%) and 7 patients in the TVP group (10%) were borderline obstructed. 1 patient in the TVP group (1.4%) was still obstructed and underwent TURP. As for complications, 4 patients (5.7%) in the TVP group had stress urinary incontinence after 12 months vs. 1 (1.25%) in the TURP group. Discussion: The present study clearly demonstrates that TVP is as effective as TURP in relieving urinary obstruction due to BPH, it offers some advantages in terms of catheterization and hospital stay, but at the price of a higher incidence of postoperative urine incontinence. Technical improvements might solve this problem in the future, perhaps combining TVP with TURP of the apical tissue.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)359-364
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume33
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1998

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Benign prostatic hyperplasia
  • Electrovaporization
  • Treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Gallucci, M., Puppo, P., Perachino, M., Fortunato, P., Muto, G., Breda, G., Mandressi, A., Comeri, G., Boccafoschi, C., Francesca, F., Guazzieri, S., & Pappagallo, G. L. (1998). Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate vs. transurethral resection. Results of a multicentric, randomized clinical study on 150 patients. European Urology, 33(4), 359-364. https://doi.org/10.1159/000019616