Wei-Kung Tsai

Gyrus Plasmasect: Is It Better than Monopolar Transurethral Resection of Prostate?

Introduction: This randomized prospective study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of the Gyrus Plasmasect loop bipolar transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and conventional monopolar TURP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: A total of 117 men were enrolled in this study. Fifty-eight patients underwent Gyrus Plasmasect TURP and 59 patients underwent monopolar TURP. They were followed up for 3 months after surgery. Results: Significant improvements were seen postoperatively in both the Gyrus and monopolar groups in terms of prostatic volume, International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life score, peak flow rate, and post-void residual urine volume. However, the degree of improvement was not statistically different between the 2 groups. Significantly less blood loss, shorter postoperative catheterization time and length of hospital stay were seen in the Gyrus group. Conclusions: Gyrus Plasmasect TURP yielded comparable results to monopolar TURP; however, this is only a preliminary study and follow-up is necessary to assess its long-term efficacy.

Comparison of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors for upper urinary tract stones in a single center

PurposeTo compare the efficacy and outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper urinary tract stones with an electrohydraulic (EH) and an electromagnetic (EM) lithotriptor in a single center.MethodsThe medical records of 272 patients with upper urinary tract stonesu2009≤u20092xa0cm in size who underwent SWL with either the Medispec E3000 EH lithotriptor (179 cases) or the Medispec EM1000 EM lithotriptor (93 cases) were reviewed. The demographic data, stone parameters, stone-free rates, and retreatment rates were analyzed.ResultsThe EH group had a higher stone-free rate (53.6 vs. 30.1%, pu2009<u20090.001) and a lower retreatment rate (32.4 vs. 61.2%, pu2009<u20090.001) for renal and upper third ureteral stones than the EM group. The stone-free rates for renal stonesu2009<u20091xa0cm (55.5 vs. 32.2%, pu2009=u20090.045), ureteral stonesu2009<u20091xa0cm (64.5 vs. 42.1%, pu2009=u20090.028), and renal stonesu2009≥u20091xa0cm (43.1 vs. 0%, pu2009=u20090.03) were higher in the EH group. Two patients in the EH group had a renal hematoma needing hospitalization after SWL. There were no complications in the EM group.ConclusionsThe Medispec E3000 EH lithotriptor had higher stone-free rates and lower retreatment rates than the Medispec EM1000 EM lithotriptor for renal stonesu2009<u20092xa0cm and ureteral stonesu2009<u20091xa0cm. Complications were rare.