Plasmakinetic prostate resection in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia: Results of 1-year follow up

• Published in: International journal of urology Vol. 13; no. 1; pp. 21 - 24
• Main Authors: NUHOĞLU, BARIŞ, AYYILDIZ, ALI, KARAGüZEL, ERSAGUN, CEBECI, ÖZDEN, GERMIYANOĞLU, CANKON
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Melbourne, Australia Blackwell Science Pty 01.01.2006
• Subjects: Aged; benign prostate hyperplasia; Electrosurgery - instrumentation; Follow-Up Studies; gyrus device; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; PKRP; plasmakinetic; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Hyperplasia - surgery; Transurethral Resection of Prostate - methods; Treatment Outcome; TURP
• ISSN: 0919-8172; 1442-2042
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01218.x

Aim:  In our randomized prospective study, we aimed to evaluate the efficiency of plasmakinetic resection of prostate (PKRP) by comparing the preoperative and postoperative results of the transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and PKRP techniques which we administered in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) in our clinic. Methods:  Of 57 patients for whom we thought an operative intervention was necessary, 30 cases in the first group had a TURP and 24 cases in the second group had a PKRP. International prostate symptom scores (I‐PSS), uroflowmetry, measurement of residual urine amount and ultrasonography were performed for each patient both preoperatively and postoperatively (first month and first year). Operation times, urethral catheterization times, preoperative and postoperative Hb, Htc and serum Na values of the patients were compared and the complications of the groups were also compared. Results:  On first month and first year follow up between the groups, there was no significant statistical difference in I‐PSS, maximum flow rate, average flow, residual urine and size of the prostate. The decrease in serum Na level was found to be significantly higher in the TURP group (P < 0.05). The operation times were not significantly different between the groups. While the postoperative catheterization time was 75.7 h in TURP group, it was found to be 42 h in PKRP group and it was clear that catheterization time was significantly shorter (P < 0001). Conclusion:  It is obvious that PKRP is as efficient as TURP and it has a similar morbidity. In our opinion, PKRP makes a promising treatment for BPH with its advantages, such as early removal of postoperative urethral catheter, a shorter hospital stay and the absence of TUR syndrome risk.