Plasmakinetic vaporization versus plasmakinetic resection to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia: A prospective randomized trial with 1 year follow-up

Authors

  • Mert Ali Karadag Kafkas University Faculty of Medicine
  • Kursat Cecen Kafkas University
  • Aslan Demir Kafkas University
  • Ramazan Kocaaslan Kafkas University
  • Fatih Altunrende Bilim University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1902

Keywords:

prostatic hyperplasia, plasmakinetic resection, plasmakinetic vaporization

Abstract

Introduction: We evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of plasmakinetic vaporization (PKVP) and plasmakinetic resection (PKR) to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods: A total of 183 patients with BPH underwent plasmakinetic prostatic surgery between 2008 and 2012 at Kars State Hospital and Kafkas University Faculty of Medicine, Turkey. After clinical and preoperative evaluation, the patients were randomized to PKRP or PKVP groups sequentially by using computer-generated numbers. Group 1 included 96 patients treated with PKR. Group 2 included 87 patients treated with PKVP. Patients in both groups were compared in terms of hemoglobin drop, operation time, catheter duration, reobstruction, incontinence and recatheterization.

Results: When we compared the maximum flow rates (Qmax values) at the 12th month, there was no statistical difference between 2 groups. Group 1 had a mean Qmax value of 17.92 ± 3.819 and Group 2 had a 18.15 ± 3.832 value (p > 0.05). There was a statistical difference between the groups in terms of hemoglobin drop, catheter duration and operation time. The mean catheter duration in Group 1 was 3.74 ± 1.049 days, and in Group 2 it was 2.64 ± 0.849 days (p < 0.05). Operation time was statistically longer in Group 2 (PKVP) and hemoglobin drop was statistically higher in Group 1 (PKR).

Conclusion: PKVP for BPH is safe and effective. When compared with PKRP, it provides a significantly shorter catheter duration and less bleeding due to hemostasis control with similar IPSS and Qmax improvements after 1 year.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Mert Ali Karadag, Kafkas University Faculty of Medicine

Department of Urology,Assistant Professor of Urology

Kursat Cecen, Kafkas University

urology and Assistant Professor of Urology

Aslan Demir, Kafkas University

urology and Assistant Professor of Urology

Ramazan Kocaaslan, Kafkas University

urology and Assistant Professor of Urology

Fatih Altunrende, Bilim University

urology and Associate Professor of Urology

Downloads

Published

2014-09-09

How to Cite

Karadag, M. A., Cecen, K., Demir, A., Kocaaslan, R., & Altunrende, F. (2014). Plasmakinetic vaporization versus plasmakinetic resection to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia: A prospective randomized trial with 1 year follow-up. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 8(9-10), e595–9. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1902

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 9-10 (2014): CUAJ September

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.