A 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate with standard transurethral prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety, efficacy and durability of transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) with standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 104 patients admitted from the waiting list for surgery for BPH were randomized to either TUVP (52 patients, mean age 67.5 years) or TURP (52 patients, mean age 70.2 years); 51, 47 and 40 patients in each arm completed 1, 2 and 3 years of follow-up, respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline and during the follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the associated quality-of-life score (QoL), postvoid residual volume (PVR) and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax).

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable mean IPSS, QoL, Qmax and PVR at baseline. The mean (SD) values for TUVP and TURP, respectively, at 3 years showed a significant and maintained improvement in IPSS, at 4.1 (3.3) and 7.1 (6.2) (P = 0.01), in QoL, at 1.0 (0.9) and 1.6 (1.4) (P = 0.04), and in Qmax, at 22.2 (8.5) and 18 (7.1) mL/s (P = 0.02), with decreases in PVR of 30 (38) and 21.9 (26.2) mL (P = 0.27). The re-operation rate in each group was 4% during the first year, 4% during the second year and 5% during the third year. After surgery and at 1, 2 and 3 years of follow-up, impotence was reported in 17% of the TUVP group and 11% of the TURP group (P = 0.49), and retrograde ejaculation in 72% of the TUVP group and 89% of the TURP group (P = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

The 3-year follow-up results confirm that TUVP is as effective as standard TURP in the treatment of moderate-sized BPH. The long-term side-effects and complications were comparable and the initial improvement was maintained over 3 years in most patients in both groups.