DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20174894

A comparative evaluation of Transurethral Electro-Vaporisation of Prostate (TUEVP) versus Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP) for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH)

Rijul Saini, Kartik Saxena, Gourav S. Makkar, Shekhar Shivam, Sandip Desai, Shivam Singh, Nishi Gupta

Abstract


Background: Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP) has been gold standard of surgical treatment of BPH but nonetheless it is associated with many complications. Transurethral Electro-Vaporisation of Prostate (TUEVP) is a new promising modality which has similar results and better side effect profile.

Methods: A prospective, randomised, comparative study was conducted on seventy patients with symptomatic BPH in the Surgery department of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi over two years starting from December 2014. These patients were randomly assigned to two groups- A and B using online random number generator. Patients of group A underwent TUEVP and those of group B underwent TURP. Overall patient satisfaction, patient safety, procedural efficacy and operative ease of the surgeon were compared.

Results: Mean operative time (42.1 min in TUEVP and 38.4 min in TURP) and complication rates (14.3% in TUEVP and 11.4% in TURP) were comparable in both groups. Intra-operative bleeding was significantly less (2.9% in TUEVP; 22.9% in TURP) and visual clarity of operative field was significantly better in TUEVP (persistently clear in 97.1% in TUEVP; 77.1% in TURP). The mean catheterisation time (1.14 days in TUEVP and 2.51 days in TURP) and hospitalisation time (2.14 days in TUEVP and 3.1 days in TURP) were significantly shorter in TUEVP.

Conclusions: TUEVP is comparable to TURP in terms of patient satisfaction, safety, operative time and procedural efficacy. TUEVP has shorter duration of catheterisation and hospitalisation and is better than TURP in terms of intra-operative bleeding and operative ease of the surgeon.


Keywords


BPH, TUEVP, TUVP, TURP, TUEVP v/s TURP

Full Text:

PDF

References


Garraway WM, Russell EB, Lee RJ. Impact of previously unrecognized benign prostatic hyperplasia on the daily activities of middle-aged and elderly men. Br J Gen Pract. 1993;43:318-21.

Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett ATK. Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3885 patients. J Urol. 1989;141:243-8.

Mebust WK, Raj DR, Schroeder F. Correlation between pathology, clinical symptoms and the course of the disease. The International Consultation on BPH- Proceedings. Paris. 1997:51-62.

Abdel-Halim RE. Urethral catheters: A historical review. Saudi Medical Journal. 1990;11(2):87-8.

Mani N. Riolan II (1580-1657) and medical research. Bull Hist Med. 1968;42(2):121-44.

Neal DE. The National Prostatectomy Audit. Br J Urol. 1997;79(2):69-75.

Matos-Ferreira A, Varregoso J. Electrovaporization of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic enlargement. Br J Urol. 1997;80:575-8.

Kaplan SA, Laor E, Fatal M, Te AE. Transurethral resection of the prostate versus transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate: A blinded, prospective comparative study with 1-year follow - up. J Urol. 1998 Feb;159(2):454-8.

Netto NR Jr, De Lima ML, Lucena R, Lavoura NS, Cortado PL, Netto MR. Is transurethral vaporization a remake of transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol. 1999 Oct;13(8):591-4.

Fitzpatrick JM. Minimally Invasive and Endoscopic Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. In: Wein AJ. Editor, 10th Edition. Campbell-Walsh urology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2012:2688-2690.

Van Swol CF, Van Vliet RJ, Verdaasdonk RM. Electrovaporization as a treatment modality for transurethral resection of the prostate: influence of generator type. Urology. 1999;53:317-21.

Hammadeh MY, Philp T. Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) is effective, safe and durable. Prostatic cancer and Prostatic diseases. 2003;6:121-6.

Harvey Burman. Stat Trek.com; 2016. Available at: http:/stattrek.com/statistics/random-number-generator.aspx (accessed on 20/10/2014).

Choi EPH, Lam CLK, Chin W. Validation of the International prostate symptom score in Chinese males and females with lower urinary tract symptoms. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2014;12:1.

Farrokhyar F. Power Analysis and Sample Size Calculation: Why is it important? Available at: https://fhs.mcmaster.ca/surgery/documents/sample_size.pdf (accessed on 20/10/2014).

Kupeli S, Baltaci S, Soygur T, Aytac S, Yilmaz E, Budak M. A prospective randomized study of transurethral resection of the prostate and transurethral vaporization of the prostate as a therapeutic alternative in the management of men with BPH. Eur Urol. 1998;34(1):15-8.

Varregoso AM, Electrovaporization of prostate in patients with benign prostatic enlargement. BJUI. 1997 October;80(4):575-8.

Hammadeh MY, Madaan S, Singh M, Philp T. Two-year follow-up of a prospective randomised trial of electrovaporization versus resection of prostate. Eur Urol. 1998 Sep;34(3):188-92.

Mcallister WJ, Karim O, Plail RO, Samra DR, Yang Q, Fowler CG. Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate: is it any better than conventional transurethral resection of the prostate? BJUI. 2003;91:211-4.