Indian Journal of Urology Users online:547  
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 28  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 307-312

Photoselective vaporization of prostate vs. transurethral resection of prostate: A prospective, randomized study with one year follow-up

Department of Urology, V.M. Medical College and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Pawan Vasudeva
Department of Urology, V.M. Medical College and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi - 110 029
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.102708

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: To evaluate in a prospective, randomized study, the efficacy and safety profile of photoselective vaporization of prostate (PVP) using a 80W potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser when compared to standard transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). Materials and Methods: Between February 2009 and August 2009, 117 patients satisfying the eligibility criteria underwent surgery [60 PVP{Group A}; 57 TURP{Group B}]. The groups were compared for functional outcome (both subjective and objective parameters), perioperative parameters and complications, with a follow up of one year. P value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Mean age was 66.68 years and 65.74 years, mean IPSS score was 19.98 and 20.88, mean prostate volume was 44.77 cc and 49.02 cc in Group A and B, respectively. Improvements in IPSS, QOL, prostate volume, Q max and PVRU at 12 months were similar in both groups. PVP patients had longer operating time, lesser perioperative blood loss, shorter catheterization time and a higher dysuria rate when compared to TURP patients. The overall complication rate was similar in the two groups. Conclusions: In patients with LUTS due to BPE, KTP-PVP is an equally efficacious alternative to TURP with durable results at one year follow up with additional benefits of lesser perioperative blood loss, lesser transfusion requirements and a shorter catheterization time. Long term comparative data is awaited to clearly define the role of KTP-PVP in such patients.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded96    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal