Background and Purpose.
@EN Laser induced prostatectomy(LIP) has recently been considered as a safe alternative to conventional transurethral resection of the prostate(TURP) in the surgical treatment of BPH. However, the value of LIP remains incompletely defined. We
herein
have performed a prospective study to compare TURP and LIP in treatment efficacy, safety and costs to define the vale of LIP.
@ES Materials and Methods.
@EN 113 patients with BPH who were candidates of TURP were randomized to undergo TURP or LIP and were adequately followed up for more than 1 year. There were no significant differences in preoperative clinical characteristics between 55 patients
who
underwent TURP and 58 patients who underwent LIP. For the LIOP procedure, Nd:YAG was used in 42 patients and diode laser in 16 patients, respectively. 37 patients were treated by contac6t LIP only, and 21 with hybrid procedures of contact LIP and
noncontact LIP using side firing laser fiber or interstitial aser fiber. Seven patients underwent LIP under local anesthesia at the outpati8ent department.
@ES Results.
@EN Jnternational prostate symptom score(IPSS) and peak urinary flow rate(Qmax) were significantly improved at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after LIP as after TURP. There were no significant difference between TURP group(85.4%) and I IP
group(87.9%)
in treatment success rate as defined by improvement of IPSS and Qmax as well as patient's content for the surgical outcome. Nine(16.4%) and two(3.6%) of the patients who underwent TURP and none of the patients who LIP underwent developed
significant
bleeding and electrolyte imbalance, respectively. There no significant difference in psotoperative incidence of retrograde ejaculation, infection and urethral stricture between the two groups. Compared to TURP, the LIP procedure required
signficantly
shorter hospitalization(6.8 vs 4.5 days) and catheterization(4.1 vs 2.6 dyas, all p<0.01). There was no significant difference in total treatment cost between the two groups.
@ES Conclusion.
@EN LIP may be comparable to TURP in terms of short term treatment efficacy and cost effectiveness. LIP may be better than TURP in terms of safety and shortened hospitalization and catheterization. Futrther studies are necessary on long-term
outcomes of
LIP.
|