Research Paper | Medical Surgical | India | Volume 5 Issue 6, June 2016
Comparison of Photoselective Vaporization of Prostate (KTP-PVP) Vs. Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP): A Prospective, Randomized Study
Harsh Gupta, Suresh Goyal
Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporization of prostate (PVP) using a 100W potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser in comparison to transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) in patients of benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). Materials and Methods Between Jan 2014 and December 2015, 121 patients satisfying the eligibility criteria underwent surgery 62 PVP (Group A), 59 TURP (Group B). The groups were compared for functional outcome, perioperative parameters and complications, with a follow up of 6months. P value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Mean age was 65.72 years and 64.38 years, mean IPSS score was 19.02 and 20.18, mean prostate volume was 43.67 cc and 48.78 cc in Group A and B, respectively. Improvements in IPSS, QOL, prostate volume, Q max and PVRU at 6 months were similar in both groups. PVP patients had longer operating time, lesser perioperative blood loss, shorter catheterization time when compared to TURP. Conclusions In patients of benign prostatic enlargement, KTP-PVP is a good alternative to TURP with durable results at 6 months follow up with additional benefits of lesser perioperative blood loss, lesser transfusion requirements and a shorter catheterization time.
Keywords: Benign prostatic hyperplasia, photoselective vaporization, transurethral resection of prostate, potassium titanyl phosphate laser
Edition: Volume 5 Issue 6, June 2016
Pages: 1099 - 1102
How to Cite this Article?
Harsh Gupta, Suresh Goyal, "Comparison of Photoselective Vaporization of Prostate (KTP-PVP) Vs. Transurethral Resection of Prostate (TURP): A Prospective, Randomized Study", International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), https://www.ijsr.net/search_index_results_paperid.php?id=NOV164339, Volume 5 Issue 6, June 2016, 1099 - 1102