Purpose: To urodynamically assess the outcome results in a prospective cohort study of electrovaporization of the prostate (TVP) versus laser ablation of the prostate (LAP) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: A randomized cohort of 10 men were enrolled to undergo a TVP procedure and a second cohort of 10 patients to undergo LAP. Preoperatively and at the 6-month follow-up all patients underwent a pressure-flow urodynamic study. Transrectal ultrasound for prostatic volume was performed at the time of enrollment and at the 6-month follow-up. Results: Preoperatively, all patients except 1 were in the obstructed or equivocal range according to the Abrams-Griffin nomogram. At the 6-month follow-up the mean maximum detrusor pressure (Pdet) maximum flow rate (Qmax) for both groups of patients moved into the equivocal range. The mean prostatic volume for the TVP patients decreased 20% in comparison to a 2% decrease in prostatic volume for LAP patients. Both groups experienced similar decreases in the American Urological Association (AUA) symptom scores and increases in peak flow rates at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: Both treatment groups demonstrated a relief in symptoms by urodynamic assessment and AUA symptom score. This was present even though both groups had only a minimal decrease in prostatic volume. A reduction in prostate volume does not appear to be a prerequisite for improvement of symptoms from BPH.

Keywords:
Electrovaporization, Laser ablation, Pressure-flow study, Prostate
This content is only available via PDF.
1998
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.