Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate versus Plasmakinetic Enucleation of the Prostate in the Treatment of Massive Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Abstract

Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common chronic progressive disease resulting in urinary obstruction in aging men. It comes to more and more patients with massive BPH with the aging of society and extension of life expectancy. Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and complications between transurethral bipolar plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of massive BPH. Design and Setting: Patients with BPH were divided into the PKEP group and the TURP group randomly. Intraoperative blood loss (BL), operation time (OT), resected tissue weight (RTW), gland resection ratio (GRR), postoperative indwelling ureter time (IUT), bladder fistula time (BFT) and hospital stay time (HST), preoperative and postoperative serum sodium concentration (SSC), hemoglobin concentration (HGB), prostate weight (PW), postvoid residual (PVR), maximum urinary flow rate (Q_max), international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and other complications were analyzed and compared respectively. Results: There was no statistical difference in preoperative IPSS, preoperative QOL score, preoperative PVR, preoperative Q_max, postoperative QOL score, postoperative PVR, postoperative Q_max, IPSS difference value (DV), Q_max DV, and PVR DV between the PKEP group and the TURP group (p > 0.05). OT, BL, IUT, BFT, HST, and postoperative IPSS in the PKEP group were significantly lower than that in the TURP group (p < 0.01). RTW and GRR in the PKEP group were significantly higher than that in the TURP group (p < 0.01). QOL DV in the PKEP group was higher than that in the TURP group (p < 0.05). There was statistical difference in SSC DV between the PKEP group and the TURP group (p < 0.05). There was significant statistical difference in postoperative PW, postoperative HGB, PW DV, and HGB DV between the PKEP group and the TURP group (p < 0.01). There was significant statistical difference in IPSS, QOL, PVR, and Q_max between postoperative value and preoperative value in both groups (p < 0.01). The incidence of transurethral resection syndrome, obturator nerve reflex, transient urinary incontinence, and retrograde ejaculation between the PKEP group and the TURP group has no statistical difference (p > 0.05). Capsule perforation, blood transfusion, secondary hemorrhage, bladder neck contracture, and urethral stricture in the PKEP group were lower than that in the TURP group (p < 0.05). Bladder spasm in the PKEP group was significantly lower than that in the TURP group (p < 0.01). There was no statistical difference in preoperative and postoperative IIEF-5, effective erectile frequency, telotism average tension, sustainable telotism average time, and sexual dissatisfaction between the PKEP group and the TURP group (p > 0.05). Conclusions: PKEP and TURP have similar clinical efficacy in the treatment of massive BPH. PKEP has advantages in shorter OT, less BL, more GRR, and fewer complications, but the long-term therapeutic effect of PKEP needs further follow-up.