Objective: To evaluate plasmakinetic vapor enucleation of the prostate (PVEP) with button electrode and plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in patients with urinary symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) >90 ml. Methods: A total of 112 patients with symptomatic BPE were randomly assigned to either PKRP or PVEP prospectively from August 2012 to May 2014 in our department. Perioperative and postoperative data were investigated during a 3-month follow-up. Results: PVEP was significantly superior to PKRP in terms of operation time (63.9 ± 7.7 vs. 78.1 ± 13.6 min, p < 0.001), hemoglobin loss (1.18 ± 0.30 vs. 1.63 ± 0.38 g/dl, p < 0.001), serum sodium decrease (2.9 ± 0.7 vs. 4.3 ± 0.8 mmol/l, p < 0.001), catheterization duration (49.3 ± 12.2 vs. 78.1 ± 14.8 h, p < 0.001) and hospital stay (100.2 ± 28.3 vs. 116.0 ± 29.2 h, p = 0.004). There were no statistical differences in blood transfusion between the two groups. In addition, there were no statistical differences in maximum urinary flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score, postvoid residual urine volume, quality-of-life score, transient incontinence, and urethral stricture at 3 months postoperatively. Conclusions: PVEP with button electrode is an equally effective technique for treatment of large BPE with PKRP, with more safety and faster recovery. It may become the superior alternative to PKRP for patients with large BPE.

Keywords:
Benign prostatic enlargement, Plasmakinetic vapor enucleation of the prostate, Button electrode, Plasmakinetic resection of the prostate
1.
Madersbacher S, Alivizatos G, Nordling J, Sanz CR, Emberton M, de la Rosette JJ: EAU 2004 guidelines on assessment, therapy and follow-up of men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPH guidelines). Eur Urol 2004;46:547-554.
2.
Jacobsen SJ, Girman CJ, Lieber MM: Natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2001;58(6 suppl 1):5-16; discussion 16.
3.
Suer E, Gokce I, Yaman O, Anafarta K, Göğüş O: Open prostatectomy is still a valid option for large prostates: a high-volume, single-center experience. Urology 2008;72:90-94.
4.
Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, Emberton M, Gravas S, Michel MC, N'dow J, Nordling J, de la Rosette JJ: EAU guidelines on the treatment and follow-up of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol 2013;64:118-140.
5.
Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R: Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) - incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 2006;50:969-979; discussion 980.
6.
Fraundorfer MR, Gilling PJ: Holmium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol 1998;33:69-72.
7.
Herrmann TR, Bach T, Imkamp F, Georgiou A, Burchardt M, Oelke M, Gross AJ: Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP): transurethral anatomical prostatectomy with laser support. Introduction of a novel technique for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. World J Urol 2010;28:45-51.
8.
Xu A, Zou Y, Li B, Liu C, Zheng S, Li H, Xu Y, Chen B, Xu K, Shen H: A randomized trial comparing diode laser enucleation of the prostate with plasmakinetic enucleation and resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Endourol 2013;27:1254-1260.
9.
Nuhoğlu B, Ayyildiz A, Karagüzel E, Cebeci O, Germiyanoğlu C: Plasmakinetic prostate resection in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia: results of 1-year follow-up. Int J Urol 2006;13:21-24.
10.
Hochreiter WW, Thalmann GN, Burkhard FC, Studer UE: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate combined with electrocautery resection: the mushroom technique. J Urol 2002;168:1470-1474.
11.
Neill MG, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, Frampton CM, Westenberg AM, Fraundorfer MR, Wilson LC: Randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of prostate with plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2006;68:1020-1024.
12.
Ran L, He W, Zhu X, Zhou Q, Gou X: Comparison of fluid absorption between transurethral enucleation and transurethral resection for benign prostate hyperplasia. Urol Int 2013;91:26-30.
13.
de Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, Damiano R, Perdonà S, di Lorenzo G, Mordente S, D'Armiento M: Gyrus bipolar versus standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Urology 2006;67:69-72.
14.
Mamoulakis C, Ubbink DT, de la Rosette JJ: Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Urol 2009;56:798-809.
15.
Bhansali M, Patankar S, Dobhada S, Khaladkar S: Management of large (>60 g) prostate gland: plasmaKinetic superpulse (bipolar) versus conventional (monopolar) transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol 2009;23:141-145.
16.
Hahn RG: Fluid absorption in endoscopic surgery. Br J Anaesth 2006;96:8-20.
17.
Tuhkanen K, Heino A, Ala-Opas M: Two-year follow-up results of a prospective randomized trial comparing hybrid laser prostatectomy with TURP in the treatment of big benign prostates. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2001;35:200-204.
18.
Chen S, Zhu L, Cai J, Zheng Z, Ge R, Wu M, Deng Z, Zhou H, Yang S, Wu W, Liao L, Tan J: Plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate compared with open prostatectomy for prostates larger than 100 grams: a randomized noninferiority controlled trial with long-term results at 6 years. Eur Urol 2014;66:284-291.
19.
Sinanoglu O, Ekici S, Tatar MN, Turan G, Keles A, Erdem Z: Postoperative outcomes of plasmakinetic transurethral resection of the prostate compared to monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with comorbidities. Urology 2012;80:402-406.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.