BACKGROUND Rezūm™water vapor therapy is a new minimally invasive endoscopic technology for the management and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.CASE SUMMARY A 63-year-old male presented to our department with...BACKGROUND Rezūm™water vapor therapy is a new minimally invasive endoscopic technology for the management and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.CASE SUMMARY A 63-year-old male presented to our department with severe dysuria,frequency,urgency,and interrupted stream 2 mo after receiving Rezūm™therapy.The symptoms were caused by a retained floating emphysematous necrotic sloughed tissue.We also discovered a persistent bacterial infection that was resistant to parenteral antimicrobial therapy.The treatment of the patient included surgical removal of the necrotic tissue.CONCLUSION Despite the good safety profile and minimal adverse events related to Rezūm™therapy,major complications can still occur.展开更多
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate （PKEP） for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH） compared with 160-W lithium triboride laser photoselectiv...To evaluate the safety and efficacy of plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate （PKEP） for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH） compared with 160-W lithium triboride laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate （PVP）. From February 2011 to July 2012, a prospective nonrandomized study was performed. One-hundred one patients underwent PKEP, and 110 underwent PVP. No severe intraoperative complications were recorded, and none of the patients in either group required a blood transfusion. Shorter catheterization time （38.14 ± 23.64 h vs 72.54 ± 28.38 h, P 〈 0.001） and hospitalization （2.32 ± 1.25 days vs 4.07±1.23 days, P 〈 0.001） were recorded in the PVP group. At 12-month postoperatively, the PKEP group had a maintained and statistically improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score （IPSS） （4.07 ±2.07 vs 5.00 ±2.10; P〈 0.001）, quality of life （QoL） （1.08 ± 0.72 vs 1.35 ± 0.72; P= 0.007）, maximal urinary flow rate （Qmax） （24.75±5.87 ml s^-1 vs 22.03 ±5.04 ml s^-1; P 〈 0.001）, postvoid residual urine volume （PVR） （14,29 ± 6,97 ml vs 17.00±6.11 ml; P = 0,001）, and prostate-specific antigen （PSA） value （0.78 ±0.57 ng ml^-1 vs 1.27 ±1.07 ng ml^-1; P 〈 0.001）. Both PKEP and PVP relieve low urinary tract symptoms （LUTS） due to BPH with low complication rates. PKEP can completely remove prostatic adenoma while the total amount of tissue removed by PVP is less than that can be removed by PKER Based on our study of the follow-up, PKEP provides better postoperative outcomes than PVP.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Rezūm™water vapor therapy is a new minimally invasive endoscopic technology for the management and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.CASE SUMMARY A 63-year-old male presented to our department with severe dysuria,frequency,urgency,and interrupted stream 2 mo after receiving Rezūm™therapy.The symptoms were caused by a retained floating emphysematous necrotic sloughed tissue.We also discovered a persistent bacterial infection that was resistant to parenteral antimicrobial therapy.The treatment of the patient included surgical removal of the necrotic tissue.CONCLUSION Despite the good safety profile and minimal adverse events related to Rezūm™therapy,major complications can still occur.
文摘To evaluate the safety and efficacy of plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate （PKEP） for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH） compared with 160-W lithium triboride laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate （PVP）. From February 2011 to July 2012, a prospective nonrandomized study was performed. One-hundred one patients underwent PKEP, and 110 underwent PVP. No severe intraoperative complications were recorded, and none of the patients in either group required a blood transfusion. Shorter catheterization time （38.14 ± 23.64 h vs 72.54 ± 28.38 h, P 〈 0.001） and hospitalization （2.32 ± 1.25 days vs 4.07±1.23 days, P 〈 0.001） were recorded in the PVP group. At 12-month postoperatively, the PKEP group had a maintained and statistically improvement in International Prostate Symptom Score （IPSS） （4.07 ±2.07 vs 5.00 ±2.10; P〈 0.001）, quality of life （QoL） （1.08 ± 0.72 vs 1.35 ± 0.72; P= 0.007）, maximal urinary flow rate （Qmax） （24.75±5.87 ml s^-1 vs 22.03 ±5.04 ml s^-1; P 〈 0.001）, postvoid residual urine volume （PVR） （14,29 ± 6,97 ml vs 17.00±6.11 ml; P = 0,001）, and prostate-specific antigen （PSA） value （0.78 ±0.57 ng ml^-1 vs 1.27 ±1.07 ng ml^-1; P 〈 0.001）. Both PKEP and PVP relieve low urinary tract symptoms （LUTS） due to BPH with low complication rates. PKEP can completely remove prostatic adenoma while the total amount of tissue removed by PVP is less than that can be removed by PKER Based on our study of the follow-up, PKEP provides better postoperative outcomes than PVP.
