Home    中文  
 
  • Search
  • lucene Search
  • Citation
  • Fig/Tab
  • Adv Search
Just Accepted  |  Current Issue  |  Archive  |  Featured Articles  |  Most Read  |  Most Download  |  Most Cited

Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (01): 44-49. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2023.01.010

• Clinical Research • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison of transurethral bipolar plasmakinetic prostatectomy and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of large-size benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled study

Meng You1, Zhiwen Gu1,(), Shengsheng Song1, Heqing Zhang1, Hejuan Zhan1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Foshan Fosun Chancheng Hospital, Guangdong 528031, China
  • Received:2022-09-21 Online:2023-02-01 Published:2023-01-11
  • Contact: Zhiwen Gu

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy between transurethral bipolar plasmakinetic prostatectomy (TUPKP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of large-size (>80 ml) BPH.

Methods

In Foshan Fosun Chancheng Hospital, from January 2017 to January 2021, patients of BPH, prostate size >80 ml, were enrolled in this randomised controlled study, which were classified as TUPKP group (37 patients) and HoLEP group (35 patients). IPSS, QOL, Qmax and RUV were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 and 6 months between the two groups. Operative time, blood loss, catheterization duration, postoperative hospital stay and complications were all recorded.

Results

Surgeries were successfully achieved in one stage in all patients. Perioperative results showed that operative time was significantly shorter in HoLEP group as well as catheterization duration and postoperative hospital stay (P<0.05, respectively), while there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative bladder irrigation. The prostate tissue removed in the HoLEP group was more than that in the TUPKP group (P<0.05), and the blood loss was less in the HoLEP group (P<0.05). The IPSS, RUV and QOL in each group at 1 month and 6 months were significantly lower than those before operation (P<0.05), meanwhile, Qmax of the two groups were significantly higher than those before operation (P<0.05). The improvement of IPSS and QOL were more obvious at 1 month in the HoLEP group (P<0.05, respectively). However, there were no significant difference between the two groups in IPSS, Qmax, RUV and QOL at 6 months (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusions

HoLEP and TUPKP are both safe and effective for the treatment of large-size benign prostatic hyperplasia. Compared to TUPKP, HoLEP provides a superior operative efficiency and bleeding control, it needs shorter catheterization duration and hospital stay.

Key words: BPH, Large-size prostate, Prostatectomy, Randomized controlled study(RCT)

京ICP 备07035254号-20
Copyright © Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 020-85252990 E-mail: chinendourology@126.com
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd