4.6 Article

GreenLight HPS™ 120-W laser vaporization vs transurethral resection of the prostate (<60 mL): a 2-year randomized double-blind prospective urodynamic investigation

Journal

BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 110, Issue 8, Pages 1184-1189

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10878.x

Keywords

GreenLight laser; prostate; photovaporization; transurethral resection of prostate; urodynamic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of GreenLight HPS (TM) 120-W (American Medical System Incorporation, Minnetonka, MN, USA) laser photovaporization of the prostate (PVP) compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on urodynamic results, voiding function and sexual function. PATIENTS AND METHODS In total, 20 men with intermediate/severe lower urinary tract symptoms as a result of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were randomly selected and equally divided into two groups: TURP and PVP. Urodynamic evaluation was performed and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function-5 and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form questionnaires were completed. The results were assessed at 2 years. RESULTS Mean IPSS scores were reduced in both groups, although they did not differ between the TURP and PVP groups. There was no significant change in International Index of Erectile Function-5 scores. Half of the patients in the PVP group developed urge urinary incontinence with spontaneous resolution. The urodynamic parameters analyzed showed an improvement for both groups, although the values in the TURP group values were not significantly different from those in the PVP group. CONCLUSIONS Bladder storage symptoms may represent a major concern, although they are of limited duration in patients undergoing PVP. High-power PVP can achieve and maintain the same results as TURP over a period of 24 months.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available