Display options
Share it on

J Clin Med. 2019 Jul 10;8(7). doi: 10.3390/jcm8071004.

Outcome of Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate with the GreenLight-XPS 180 Watt System Compared to Transurethral Resection of the Prostate.

Journal of clinical medicine

Maximilian Reimann, Nikita Fishman, Isabel Lichy, Laura Wiemer, Sebastian Hofbauer, Zenai Almedom, John Buckendahl, Ursula Steiner, Thorsten Schlomm, Frank Friedersdorff, Hannes Cash

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, 12203 Berlin, Germany.
  2. Department of Urology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, 12203 Berlin, Germany. [email protected].

PMID: 31295846 PMCID: PMC6678790 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8071004

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to compare the perioperative and postoperative results of photoselective vaporization of the prostate with the GreenLight-XPS 180 Watt System (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). This retrospective study included 140 men who underwent PVP and 114 men who underwent TURP for symptomatic benign prostate enlargement (BPE) between June 2010 and February 2015. The primary outcome measures were the patient reported outcome, operative results, International Prostate Symptom Score-Quality of Life (IPSS-QoL), complication rates, catheterization time, and length of hospital stay. The median follow-up times were 27 months (range 14-44) for the PVP group and 36 months (range 25-47) for the TURP group. The patient characteristics were well balanced in both groups with a median age of 71 years (PVP group) vs. 70 years (TURP group) and a comparable prostate volume (median 50 mL in the PVP group vs. 45 mL in the TURP group). The IPSS-QoL was significantly higher in the PVP group than in the TURP group (median 22 + 4; range 16-27 + 3-5 vs. median 19 + 3; range 15-23 + 3-4;

Keywords: BPE; PVP; TURP; greenlight; photoselective vaporization; prostate

References

  1. Urol Clin North Am. 1990 Aug;17(3):495-507 - PubMed
  2. Rev Urol. 2005;7 Suppl 9:S3-S14 - PubMed
  3. BJU Int. 2010 Apr;105(7):964-9 - PubMed
  4. BJU Int. 2013 Feb;111(2):312-23 - PubMed
  5. Eur Urol. 2014 May;65(5):931-42 - PubMed
  6. Prostate Suppl. 1989;2:33-50 - PubMed
  7. J Urol. 2015 Feb;193(2):570-8 - PubMed
  8. J Urol. 2015 Mar;193(3):927-34 - PubMed
  9. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):94-102 - PubMed
  10. J Urol. 1989 Feb;141(2):243-7 - PubMed
  11. Urology. 2016 May;91:167-73 - PubMed
  12. J Endourol. 2016 Aug;30(8):906-12 - PubMed
  13. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Mar;49(3):405-411 - PubMed
  14. Can J Urol. 2017 Aug;24(4):8922-8931 - PubMed
  15. J Endourol. 2017 Nov;31(11):1189-1194 - PubMed
  16. World J Urol. 2018 Jan;36(1):91-97 - PubMed
  17. BJU Int. 2018 Nov;122(5):873-878 - PubMed
  18. Urol Int. 2018;100(4):463-469 - PubMed
  19. Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Jan;4(1):8-10 - PubMed
  20. J Urol. 2018 Sep;200(3):612-619 - PubMed

Publication Types