Mahesh Chandra, Tapan Sinha, Karan Shailesh, Ashok Pradhan
Department of Urology, Army Hospital Research and Referral, New Delhi, India
Introduction: TURP is the ‘gold standard’ in the surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). But, it remains a difficult procedure to perform with complications occurring in upto 20% of patients which includes a need for blood transfusion, infection, urinary retention, incontinence, sexual dysfunction and bladder neck stenosis. Lasers are good alternative because of their relatively more safety, haemostatic property and no fluid absorption during prostate ablation coupled with shorter hospital stay and fast recovery. Photovaporization of prostate (PVP) using 80W KTP laser is an advancement in treatment of BPH especially in high risk patient e.g. those on anticoagulants, NSAID and aspirin. Normal saline (0.9%) used for irrigation further remove risk of dilutional hyponatremia i.e. TUR-syndrome. KTP laser PVP is a relatively easy procedure to learn. Aims and Objectives: To analyze the outcomes of 80W KTP laser and to confirm its efficacy, safety and durability in the treatment of BPH.
Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled study was carried out in the Department of Urology, between years 2010 to 2011. One hundred patients (n = 100) of BPH having IPSS ≥12 points and Qmax ≤15 ml/sec were randomized to undergo a TURP or PVP procedure after the standard urological evaluation. Patients suspicious of neurogenic bladder, urethral stricture or prostate cancer were excluded. TURP was performed in a standard fashion using 1.5% glycine and in the post operative, normal saline (0.9%) was used for bladder irrigation period until urine become clear. Catheters were removed as per the Institution protocol. PVP was performed using 80W KTP green-light laser system and a star pulse quasi-continuous wave at 532 nm wavelength with help of lateral deflecting quartz-fiber through lasercystoscope using 0.9% normal saline as irrigant. Various parameters including Qmax, IPSS, prostate volume, PVR, quality of life, sexual dysfunction, dysuria, continence and urinary retention were recorded at various interval. Length of catheterization, operative-time and anticoagulants status of patients was also recorded.
Observations and Results: Patients were randomly assigned into 2 equal groups. Group-A (gA) patients underwent conventional TURP and group-B (gB) 80W KTP laser PVP. Mean age of patients was 64.8 year (range: 50-80) in gA compared to 66.4 year (range: 57-78) in gB. (1) DRE. In gA, 19 (38%) had Gd-I (1-2 cm), 15 (30%) Gd-II (2-3 cm) and 16 (32%) patients had Gd-III prostate (3-4 cm projection in rectal lumen) whereas in gB, 14 (28%) had Gd-I, 15 (30%) Gd-II, 21 (42%) patients had Gd-III prostate. (2) USG. According to prostatic volume (PV) on USG, in gA, one (2%) had 20 cc PV, 18 (36%) between 20-40 cc, 15 (30%) between 40-60 cc and 16 (32%) patients had PV ≥60 cc whereas, in gB, 2 (4%) had 20 cc, 12 (24%) between 20-40 cc and 17 (34%) had 40-60 cc and 19 (38%) patients had PV ≥60 cc. (3) Mean operative-time taken to perform TURP or KTP procedure was equal in Gd-I prostate i.e. 24 min (SD of 3 and 1, respectively) whereas in Gd-II, this was comparable (46 vs 48 min) and in Gd-III prostate it was 72 vs 77 min. (4) International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). In gA, at admission 40 (80%) patients had severe LUTS and 1-wk after the procedure 40 (80%) moderate, 5 (10%) had mild symptoms. After 1-mo, 34 (68%) had mild and 9 (18%) moderate LUTS. After 1-year, 48 (96%) had only mild symptoms. In gB, 38 (76%) had severe and 10 (20%) moderate LUTS at the time of admission. But, after 1-wk 30 (60%) had moderate, 18 (36%) had severe LUTS decreasing to 5 (10%) after 1-mo and 6-mo onward, there was no major change. After 1-year, majority had mild IPSS. (5) Quality of life, was assessed on the basis of standard AUA-questionnaire. In gA, 40 (80%) felt terrible at admission, 1-wk after 38 (76%) felt delighted and 9 (18%) were pleased. A year later, majority (80%) felt delighted and 8 (16%) patients were pleased. In gB, 38 (76%) felt terrible at admission, 1-wk after 30 (60%) felt delighted and 11 (22%) were pleased. One year later, 40 (80%) continued to feel delighted and 10 (20%) pleased. (6) Uroflowmetry. In gA, at admission 15 patients had a mean Qmax (mQmax) of 5.39 ml/sec (range: 2.4-10.8) and after 1-wk mQmax was 15.31 ml/sec (range: 11.8-17.2). One month later, improved to 16.07 ml/sec (range: 12.5-18.3) and no significant change beyond this. In gB, at admission, 15 had mQmax of 6.44 ml/sec (range: 2.3-12.6). After 1-wk, mQmax was 15.17 ml/sec (range: 11.8-16.8) which improved to 15.95 ml/sec (range: 12.5-17.9) after 1-mo. Beyond this, there was no major change. (7) Length of Catheter (LoC). In gA, catheter was removed on 3rd day in all whereas in gB, 49 (98%) had catheter removed on 1st day except one patient in which catheter could be removed on 2nd day because of mild haematuria being on anticoagulant (p value < 0.001, highly significant). (8) Postvoid residual urine (PVR). In gA, 5 (33.3%) had PVR ≤50 ml, 7 (46.6%) between 51-200 ml, 3 had ≥200 ml at admission. After, 1-week 44 (88%) had PVR between 51-200 ml, 5 (10%) ≤50 ml and 1 (2%) between 201-350 ml. After 1-mo, 20 (40%) had ≤50 ml, 30 (60%) between 51-200 ml. After 3-mo, 26 (52%) had PVR <50 ml and 24 (48%) between 51-200 ml with no major change after 6-mo. In gB, 7 (46.6%) had PVR of ≤50 ml, 6 (40%) between 51-200 ml and 2 (6.6%) patients >200 ml at admission. After, 1-wk 40 (80%) had between 51-200 ml, 9 (18%) ≤50 ml, 1 (2%) patients had between 201-350 ml. At 1-mo, 21 (42%) had PVR ≤50 ml, 29 (58%) patients between 51-200 ml. At 3-mo, 27 (54%) had PVR ≤50 ml and 23 (46%) patients between 51-200 ml. At 6 mo, 28 (56%) had ≤50 ml and 21 (42%) between 51-200 ml with just one (2%) patient had PVR >200 ml and after 1-year 25 (50%) had ≤50 ml and between 51-200 ml each. In gb, 35 (70%) had PVR >500 ml on presentation but on subsequent follow-up, none had PVR >500 ml. (9) Anticoagulation. In gA, 6 required blood transfusions (BT) in the immediate postoperative with 2 patients being on anticoagulants. In gB, despite 12 patients being on anticoagulants, none required BT (p value < 0.001, highly significant). (10) Complications. In gA, 6 (12%) patients had dysuria, 35 (70%) retention and 4 (8%) incontinence at admission. But, after 1-wk, dysuria persisted and 5 (10%) patients had incontinence, which improved after 1-mo except in one and none developed retention. After 1-year, only 1 patient had incontinence, which improved following Inj. Deflux in bladder neck. At 3-mo, 30 (60%) complained of retrograde ejaculation (RGE) persisting even on subsequent follow-up. In gB, dysuria was present in 4 (8%) and 35 (70%) had retention at admission. After 1-wk, 35 (70%) complained of dysuria (p value < 0.001). Even after 1-mo, 15 (30%) continued to have dysuria. At 3-mo, 20 (40%) had RGE which persisting in all 20 (40%) patients even after 1-year.
Conclusion: KTP laser PVP produces almost equal improvement in terms of IPSS, Qmax & Qol in comparison to TURP in the treatment of BPH. But, the KTP laser takes slightly more time which decreases with learning curve. Although, mild dysuria may persist for some time but the catheterization and hospital-stay is short. Blood transfusion is not required despite patients being on anticoagulation, making KTP laser a safer even in bleeding diathesis.