A 10-year follow-up after transurethral resection of the prostate, contact laser prostatectomy and electrovaporization in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia; long-term results of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term results of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), contact laser prostatectomy (CLP) and electrovaporization of the prostate (EVAP) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1996 and 2001, a prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 150 men with LUTS suggestive of BPH, who had a prostate volume of 20-65 mL and a Schäfer's obstruction grade of > or =2. Outcome variables were the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Quality of Life (QoL) question, Symptom Problem Index (SPI), BPH Impact Index (BII), maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)), prostate volume, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, morbidity and mortality. In 2008 we carried out a long-term follow-up in these patients. Long-term values were compared with preoperative values for each treatment group (Wilcoxon signed-rank test), differences among groups were analysed (Kruskal-Wallis test) and actuarial failure-rates of the interventions were determined (Kaplan-Meier analysis). RESULTS: Although we could account for 91% of the initial participants in 2008, 66 (44%) patients (29 TURP, 20 CLP and 17 EVAP) were available for follow-up measurements after a mean (range) of 10.1(6.9-12.7) years Among the three treatment groups, there were no significant differences in IPSS, QoL, SPI, BII, Q(max), PSA level and prostate volume. The IPSS, QoL, SPI and BII were still improved (P < 0.05) from values before treatment for all treatments. Only in the TURP group were the long-term results of Q(max) still improved (P < 0.05). The mortality rate was comparable among the treatments. The 10-year actuarial failure rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.11 (0.03-0.20), 0.22 (0.10-0.35) and 0.23 (0.11-0.35) for TURP, CLP and EVAP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After a mean follow-up of 10.1 years, there were similar and durable improvements in IPSS, QoL, SPI and BII for patients with LUTS suggestive of BPH after TURP, CLP and EVAP. Between the treatment groups there were no statistically significant differences in Q(max), PSA levels and prostate volume at any time during the follow-up. However, only patients treated with TURP showed minimal durable improvements in Q(max). There was no statistically significant difference in success rate and mortality rate among the three treatments.