A comparison of 120 W laser photoselective vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction by prostate cancer

ALTAY B., ERKURT B., Kiremit M. C., HORUZ R., GÜZELBURÇ V., ALBAYRAK S.

Urologia Internationalis, cilt.94, sa.3, ss.326-329, 2015 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 94 Sayı: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2015
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1159/000366209
  • Dergi Adı: Urologia Internationalis
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.326-329
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Photoselective vaporization of prostate, Transurethral resection of the prostate, Prostate cancer, Bladder outlet obstruction, Urinary retention
  • İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: To compare the mid-term outcomes of photoselective vaporization of prostate (PVP) with GreenLight HPS 120 W laser and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for obstructive lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate cancer (CaP). Patients and Methods: Seventy four patients with locally advanced (T3/T4) CaP with severe LUTS or acute urinary retention (AUR) were allocated to TURP (n = 36) or PVP (n = 38). International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), maximum flow rates (Qmax) and post-void residual volumes (Vres), PSA levels, prostate volumes, complications, catheter removal and hospitalization periods were recorded. Patients were reassessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: The catheter removal time was significantly longer in the TURP group (3.8 ± 1.1 vs. 1.2 ± 0.7 days, p = 0.02), whereas failure of initial voiding trial was higher in PVP (2.7 vs. 13.1%, p = 0.01). No significant difference in IPSS, Qmax and Vres values was observed within the follow-up period between two groups. A significant difference in urethral stricture rate (8.3 vs. 0%), catheter removal time (3.8 ± 11 vs. 1.2 ± 0.7 days) and hospital stay (2.9 ± 0.6 vs. 1.1 ± 0.5 days) was observed in favor of PVP. Conclusions: Palliative PVP is very safe and effective by means of symptomatic relief in patients with locally advanced CaP.