Objectives: To compare clinical results of plasmakinetic (PK) resection vs. standard monopolar resection of the prostate, i.e. transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Materials and Methods: 48 patients were included in this study between January 2003 and October 2003. They were randomized into two groups (TURP:PK) with a ratio of 1:1. PK resections (n = 24) were carried out by using PlasmaKinetic Tissue Management System (Gyrus Medical Ltd, Cardiff, UK) and PlasmaSect electrodes. TURPs (n = 24) were done by using a 26-Fr continuous-flow resectoscope and Karl Storz 27040 electrodes. Patients were assessed for safety and efficacy by measuring the IPSS and maximum flow rates at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months and residual urine measurement at 3, 6 and 12 months and transrectal ultrasonography at 6 months. Results: The patients’ ages ranged from 50 to 82 (mean 64 ± 10) years. Groups were similar for operation time, bleeding score, resected tissue, catheterization time and irrigated volume. Mean serum Na levels at the end of the operation were 141.7 ± 5.1 in the TURP group and 145.2 ± 4.4 in the PK group (p = 0.013). The IPSS, QOL score and Qmax had improved significantly in the postoperative period without any differences in either group. Conclusions: The main advantage of PK resection seems to be decreasing the risk of TUR syndrome, thus, larger prostates could be treated without a time limitation, theoretically. However, this technique brings no advantages in terms of intra- and postoperative bleeding, hospital stay, operation time and late complications.

This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.