Comparison of Holmium Laser Enucleation and Plasmakinetic Resection of Prostate: A Randomized Trial with 72-Month Follow-Up

33Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term and flexible cystourethroscopy results of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and to compare them with those of plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP). Methods: In the long-term follow-up, variables, including the international prostatic symptomatic score, quality of life scores, maximum flow rate (Qmax), and international index of erectile function (IIEF), and the adverse events, including the need for retreatment, were specifically assessed. One hundred twenty-two HoLEP and 119 PKRP of the initial 280 patients included in this study were available, with 10 deceased and 29 lost to follow-up. Results: We found that none of the assessable patients required reoperation for recurrent benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) in the HoLEP group, whereas two required reoperation in the PKRP group. There were no significant differences in most variables between the two groups in the long-term results. But in terms of Qmax, transrectal ultrasound prostate volume, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, IIEF-5 score, and long-term posttrial follow-up of flexible cystourethroscopy, the HoLEP group showed better results. Conclusion: The long-term follow-up data of this randomized trial confirm that HoLEP and PKRP are both effective and durable surgical interventions for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPE. Given the clinically relevant advantages associated with HoLEP, the alternation of PSA level, sexual function, and urination can be improved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gu, M., Chen, Y. B., Liu, C., Wan, X., Cai, Z. K., Chen, Q., & Wang, Z. (2018). Comparison of Holmium Laser Enucleation and Plasmakinetic Resection of Prostate: A Randomized Trial with 72-Month Follow-Up. Journal of Endourology, 32(2), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0700

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free