METHOD: In a retrospective analysis, 237 patients diagnosed with high-risk benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) underwent prostate enucleation using three different groups of surgical instruments at the Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University. These groups included the red laser device group (n = 67), the green laser device group (n = 61), and the plasma device group (n = 109). The study evaluated changes in prostate mass, blood loss, operation time, and postoperative efficacy at 1- and 6-month intervals, as well as any associated complications.
RESULTS: The red and green laser surgical instrument groups demonstrated superiority over the plasma group in several aspects. (1) Operation Time: *1* Red laser group: 87.9 ± 14.7 minutes; *1* Green laser group: 86.1 ± 15.3 minutes. (2) Blood Loss: *1* Red laser group: 30.1 ± 5.9 mL; *2*Green laser group: 30.9 ± 6.1 mL. (3) Temporary Urinary Incontinence: *1*Red laser group: 3 cases (4.48%); *2*Green laser group: 2 cases (3.28%). These differences were statistically significant. Additionally, postoperative indicators such as IPSS(International Prostate Prostate Symptom Score), QoL(Quality of Life), Q max(The Maximum Flow Rate), and RUV(Residual Urine Volume) showed significant improvement in all three groups compared to the preoperative state.
CONCLUSION: Red laser, green laser and plasma surgical devices were safe and effective in the treatment of high critical benign prostatic hyperplasia; laser surgical devices showed better performance in terms of operation time, intraoperative bleeding and complications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an age-matched case-control study of US occurrence after PK-TURP. Retrospective data were collected from the hospital records of patients who had a minimum of 36 months of follow-up information. Among the data collected for analysis were prostate-specific antigen level, estimated prostate weight, the amount of prostate resected, operative time, history of urinary tract infection, previous transurethral resection of the prostate, and whether the PK-TURP was combined with other endourological procedures. The resection rate was calculated from the collected data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify clinical and surgical risk factors related to US formation.
RESULTS: A total of 373 patients underwent PK-TURP between 2003 and 2009. There were 13 cases of US (3.5%), and most of them (10 of 13, 76.9%) presented within 24 months of surgery. Most of the US cases (11 of 13, 84.6%) occurred at the bulbar urethra. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified slow resection rate as the only risk factor significantly associated with US occurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: The US rate of 3.5% after PK-TURP in this study is comparable to contemporary series. A slow resection rate seems to be related to US occurrence. This should be confirmed by further studies; meanwhile, we must be mindful of this possibility when operating with the PK-TURP system.