2007•Journal of Clinical UrologyRequires access

A comparative study of transurethral plasma kinetic resection versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Wen Wei

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of transurethral plasma kinetic resection of prostate (PKRP) and transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods:Totally 164 BPH patients with matched lesions were divided into 2 groups: PKRP group and TURP group at our institute. The clinical date and therapeutic results were measured and compared between the 2 groups.Results:In PKRP group, the average operative time, intraoperative bleeding, the rates of postoperative temporary urinary incontinence(within 1 month), secondary hemorrhage (within 1 month) were (60±16)min, (224±78)ml,17.1 %(14/82) and 9.8% (8/82), respectively; while in TURP group, these parameters were(80±21)min, ( 408±115)ml, 31.7 %(26/82) and 18.3% (15/82),respectively. Significant differences were found between the 2 groups (P0.05).Resected prostate weight was 28.6 ±3.6 g in PKRP group versus 26.2 ±3.2g in TURP group. Intraoperative blood transfusion rate was 1.2%(1/82) in PKRP group and 3.6%(3/82) in TURP group. There were 3 pre-transurethral resection syndrome(TURS) patients and 1 TURS patient in TURP group, No transurethral resection syndrome(TURS) occurred in PKRP group. Of all the cases, 72 patients of PKRP and 76 patients of TURP were followed up for 3 months. Three patients in PKRP group and 10 patients in TURP group were found having urethral stricture after 3 months. In PKRP group, Qmax, postvoid residual(PVR) , the International Prostate Symptom Score(IPSS) and quality of life (QOL) were (22.6±4.6)ml/s, (8.6±4.4)ml, (4.6±1.2) scores, (1.2±0.6) scores , respectively; while in TURP group,these parameters were (24.2±4.2)ml/s, (9.6±3.6)ml, (4.4±1.0) scores, (1.4±0.8) scores, respectively, these parameters were significantly improved after both procedures(P0.05), but there was no significant difference in the above parameters between 2 groups (P0.05).Conclusions:PKRP and TURP have similar efficacy in the treatment of BPH, but PKRP is safer and less complicated than TURP. Thus, PKRP is a better treatment option for BPH.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of transurethral plasma kinetic resection of prostate (PKRP) and transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods:Totally 164 BPH patients with matched lesions were divided into 2 groups: PKRP group and TURP group at our institute. The clinical date and therapeutic results were measured and compared between the 2 groups.Results:In PKRP group, the average operative time, intraoperative bleeding, the rates of postoperative temporary urinary incontinence(within 1 month), secondary hemorrhage (within 1 month) were (60±16)min, (224±78)ml,17.1 %(14/82) and 9.8% (8/82), respectively; while in TURP group, these parameters were(80±21)min, ( 408±115)ml, 31.7 %(26/82) and 18.3% (15/82),respectively. Significant differences were found between the 2 groups (P0.05).Resected prostate weight was 28.6 ±3.6 g in PKRP group versus 26.2 ±3.2g in TURP group. Intraoperative blood transfusion rate was 1.2%(1/82) in PKRP group and 3.6%(3/82) in TURP group. There were 3 pre-transurethral resection syndrome(TURS) patients and 1 TURS patient in TURP group, No transurethral resection syndrome(TURS) occurred in PKRP group. Of all the cases, 72 patients of PKRP and 76 patients of TURP were followed up for 3 months. Three patients in PKRP group and 10 patients in TURP group were found having urethral stricture after 3 months. In PKRP group, Qmax, postvoid residual(PVR) , the International Prostate Symptom Score(IPSS) and quality of life (QOL) were (22.6±4.6)ml/s, (8.6±4.4)ml, (4.6±1.2) scores, (1.2±0.6) scores , respectively; while in TURP group,these parameters were (24.2±4.2)ml/s, (9.6±3.6)ml, (4.4±1.0) scores, (1.4±0.8) scores, respectively, these parameters were significantly improved after both procedures(P0.05), but there was no significant difference in the above parameters between 2 groups (P0.05).Conclusions:PKRP and TURP have similar efficacy in the treatment of BPH, but PKRP is safer and less complicated than TURP. Thus, PKRP is a better treatment option for BPH.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of transurethral plasma kinetic resection of prostate (PKRP) and transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods:Totally 164 BPH patients with matched lesions were divided into 2 groups: PKRP group and TURP group at our institute. The clinical date and therapeutic results were measured and compared between the 2 groups.Results:In PKRP group, the average operative time, intraoperative bleeding, the rates of postoperative temporary urinary incontinence(within 1 month), secondary hemorrhage (within 1 month) were (60±16)min, (224±78)ml,17.1 %(14/82) and 9.8% (8/82), respectively; while in TURP group, these parameters were(80±21)min, ( 408±115)ml, 31.7 %(26/82) and 18.3% (15/82),respectively. Significant differences were found between the 2 groups (P0.05).Resected prostate weight was 28.6 ±3.6 g in PKRP group versus 26.2 ±3.2g in TURP group. Intraoperative blood transfusion rate was 1.2%(1/82) in PKRP group and 3.6%(3/82) in TURP group. There were 3 pre-transurethral resection syndrome(TURS) patients and 1 TURS patient in TURP group, No transurethral resection syndrome(TURS) occurred in PKRP group. Of all the cases, 72 patients of PKRP and 76 patients of TURP were followed up for 3 months. Three patients in PKRP group and 10 patients in TURP group were found having urethral stricture after 3 months. In PKRP group, Qmax, postvoid residual(PVR) , the International Prostate Symptom Score(IPSS) and quality of life (QOL) were (22.6±4.6)ml/s, (8.6±4.4)ml, (4.6±1.2) scores, (1.2±0.6) scores , respectively; while in TURP group,these parameters were (24.2±4.2)ml/s, (9.6±3.6)ml, (4.4±1.0) scores, (1.4±0.8) scores, respectively, these parameters were significantly improved after both procedures(P0.05), but there was no significant difference in the above parameters between 2 groups (P0.05).Conclusions:PKRP and TURP have similar efficacy in the treatment of BPH, but PKRP is safer and less complicated than TURP. Thus, PKRP is a better treatment option for BPH.

Key concepts: Medicine, Prostate, Urology, Transurethral resection of the prostate, Resection, Hyperplasia, Clinical significance, Urethral stricture

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A comparative study of transurethral plasma kinetic resection versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia — Research Paper | ScholarLens