ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVES</b>To compare the efficacy of transurethral electrovaporization of prostate (TUVP) with transurethral resection of prostate (TURP).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>206 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) whose prostatic sizes were all less than 60 grams were randomly divided into two groups. 97 cases were treated by TUVP while the other 109 cases were treated by TURP. The patients who underwent either TUVP or TURP were followed up for 12-34 months with an average of 20 months postoperatively.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Both groups showed the significant decline in the mean IPSS (international prostatic symptom score) (P < 0.01), the mean PVR (Postovoiding Residual Volume) (P < 0.01), while increase in mean Qmax (Peak uroflow rate) (P < 0.01) in 12 months, 24 months after the operation. There were significant differences in the mean duration of operation or catheterization postoperatively (P < 0.05). The main complications of post-operation in the two groups were stress incontinence, TUR syndrome, urethral stricture, secondary bleeding.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Both TUVP and TURP are effective treatment for the patient with BPH whose prostatic size is less than 60 grams. TUVP spends shorter time of the operation and postoperative catheterization than that of TURP.</p>
Subject(s)
Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Electrosurgery , Methods , Hemorrhage , Postoperative Complications , Prostatic Hyperplasia , General Surgery , Transurethral Resection of Prostate , Methods , Treatment Outcome , Urethral Stricture , Urinary Incontinence, StressABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVES</b>To evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) using sildenafil or intracavernosal injection of prostaglandin E1(PGE1).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>54 patients with ED were randomly classified into two groups and received either oral sildenafil (group A) or intracavernosal injection of PGE1(group B) for 4-9 months with an average of 6 months.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The percentages of efficacy in the two groups were 80.0% and 83.3%, respectively. There was no statistical difference between group A and B (P > 0.05). Two of six patients who did not respond to sildenafal in group A achieved erections sufficient for sexual intercourse when the six patients received intracavernous injection of PGE1. None of the four patients who did not respond to intracavernous injection of PEG1 in group B achieved erection sufficient for sexual intercourse when they received oral sildenafil.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Both oral sildenafil and intracavernous injection of PGE1 are effective for patients with ED of various etiologies. The patients who do not respond to sildenafil can receive intracavernous injection therapy. The satisfactory results can probably achieved.</p>