Home  |  Archive  |  Online Submission  |  News & Events  |  Subscribe  |  APFA  |  Society  |  Links  |  Contact Us  |  中文版
Search   
 
Journal

Ahead of print
Authors' Accepted
    Manuscripts
new!
Current Issue
Archive
Acknowledgments
Special Issues
Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

Online Submission
Online Review
Instruction for Authors
Instruction for Reviewers
English Corner new!

About AJA

About AJA
Editorial Board
Contact Us
News

Resources & Services

Advertisement
Subscription
Email alert
Proceedings
Reprints

Download area

Copyright licence
EndNote style file
Manuscript word template
Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

Proof-reading for the
    authors

AJA Club (in English)
AJA Club (in Chinese)

Links

Meetings
Journals
Societies & Institutes
Hospitals
Databases & Libraries
Companies
Websites
Other links

 
Abstract

Volume 19, Issue 1 (January 2017) 19, 15–19; DOI:10.4103/1008-682X.164199

Plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate versus 160-W laser photoselective vaporization for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Si-Jun Wang, Xiao-Nan Mu, Ji Chen, Xun-Bo Jin, Shi-Bao Zhang, Long-Yang Zhang

1Department of Urology, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250013, P.R. China; 2Department of Concerning Foreign Affairs, Jinan Central
Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250013, P.R. China; 3Department of Minimally Invasive Urology, Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University,
Jinan 250021, P.R. China.

Correspondence: Dr. LY Zhang (zlyzxyy@163.com) or Dr. XB Jin (jinxunbo@163.com)

Date of Submission 18-Dec-2014 Date of Decision 12-Apr-2015 Date of Acceptance 22-Jul-2015 Date of Web Publication 29-Dec-2015

Abstract

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) for the treatment of symptomatic benign
prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) compared with 160‑W lithium triboride laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP). From
February 2011 to July 2012, a prospective nonrandomized study was performed. One‑hundred one patients underwent PKEP, and
110 underwent PVP. No severe intraoperative complications were recorded, and none of the patients in either group required a blood
transfusion. Shorter catheterization time (38.14 ± 23.64 h vs 72.54 ± 28.38 h, P < 0.001) and hospitalization (2.32 ± 1.25 days vs
4.07 ± 1.23 days, P < 0.001) were recorded in the PVP group. At 12‑month postoperatively, the PKEP group had a maintained
and statistically improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (4.07 ± 2.07 vs 5.00 ± 2.10; P < 0.001), quality of
life (QoL) (1.08 ± 0.72 vs 1.35 ± 0.72; P = 0.007), maximal urinary flow rate (Qmax) (24.75 ± 5.87 ml s−1 vs 22.03 ± 5.04 ml s−1;
P < 0.001), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) (14.29 ± 6.97 ml vs 17.00 ± 6.11 ml; P = 0.001), and prostate‑specific
antigen (PSA) value (0.78 ± 0.57 ng ml−1 vs 1.27 ± 1.07 ng ml−1; P < 0.001). Both PKEP and PVP relieve low urinary tract
symptoms (LUTS) due to BPH with low complication rates. PKEP can completely remove prostatic adenoma while the total amount
of tissue removed by PVP is less than that can be removed by PKEP. Based on our study of the follow‑up, PKEP provides better
postoperative outcomes than PVP.
Asian Journal of Andrology (2016) 18, 1–5; doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.164199; published online: ???
Keywords: electrosurgery; laser therapy; prostate; prostatic hyperplasia; transurethral resection of prostate

Full Text | PDF |

 
Browse:  281
 
Copyright 1999-2017  Shanghai Materia Medica, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.  All rights reserved