Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 135-142

Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate is a reliable minimal invasive technique for benign prostate hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials


1 Department of Urology, Zhejiang Xiaoshan Hospital, Hangzhou 311202
2 Department of Urology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200003
3 Department of Urology, General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing 100700

Date of Submission08-Feb-2014
Date of Decision29-Apr-2014
Date of Acceptance21-Jul-2014
Date of Web Publication03-Oct-2014

Correspondence Address:
Yi Fan
Department of Urology, Zhejiang Xiaoshan Hospital, Hangzhou 311202

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.138191

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The pooled estimates of maximum flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score, operation time, catheterization time, irrigated volume, hospital stay, transurethral resection syndrome, transfusion, clot retention, urinary retention and urinary stricture were assessed. There was no notable difference in International Prostate Symptom Score between TURP and PKRP groups during the 1-month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months follow-up period, while the pooled Q max at 1-month favored PKRP group. PKRP group was related to a lower risk rate of transurethral resection syndrome, transfusion and clot retention, and the catheterization time and operation time were also shorter than that of TURP. The irrigated volume, length of hospital stay, urinary retention and urinary stricture rate were similar between groups. In conclusion, our study suggests that the PKRP is a reliable minimal invasive technique and may anticipatorily prove to be an alternative electrosurgical procedure for the treatment of BPH.

Keywords: benign prostate hyperplasia; lower urinary tract symptoms; plasmakinetic resection of prostate; transurethral resection of prostate


How to cite this article:
Wang K, Li Y, Teng JF, Zhou HY, Xu DF, Fan Y. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate is a reliable minimal invasive technique for benign prostate hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Asian J Androl 2015;17:135-42

How to cite this URL:
Wang K, Li Y, Teng JF, Zhou HY, Xu DF, Fan Y. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate is a reliable minimal invasive technique for benign prostate hyperplasia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Asian J Androl [serial online] 2015 [cited 2021 Jan 27];17:135-42. Available from: https://www.ajandrology.com/text.asp?2015/17/1/135/138191 - DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.138191


  Introduction Top


Lower urinary tract symptoms or LUTS is a common age-related disease affecting men. Enlargement of the prostate gland is mainly due to a histopathological condition known benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), which is considered the main reason of LUTS and usually develops beyond the fourth decade of life, affecting about 50% men by the age of 60 years and 90% by the age of 85 years. [1],[2] However, the statistic data in China show that the percentage of BPH in men aged 60 years is about 50%, and this figure rises to 83% in men aged 80 years. [3]

Various therapies are available for the treatment of BPH-related LUTS, including follow-up, drugs and surgical intervention. [4],[5],[6] Surgical treatment includes minimally invasive and open prostatectomy. Despite advances in minimally invasive therapies, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains the gold standard for treatment of BPH and represents one of the most common surgeries in the Western world. [7],[8],[9],[10] Nevertheless, TURP-associated morbidity rate was reported to be 15%-18%, including clot retention, urethral stricture and TUR syndrome, etc. [11],[12],[13] This high morbidity rate fueled the interests of investigators to search for alternative procedures.

Plasmakinetic resection of prostate (PKRP) is a newly developed method in the field of transurethral surgery that uses bipolar energy to resect the enlarged prostate gland. [14] The plasmakinetic system enables to resect or vaporize the prostate tissue by creation of an ionized plasma corona, using an axipolar electrode and electro-conductive solutions. [15] The active and return electrodes of the loop bend in the same axis. The use of normal saline irrigation (NaCl 0.9%) instead of mannitol solution to decrease the morbidity associated with TUR syndrome, and prolonged resection time are the two main supposed advantages. However, the real advantage of PKRP over conventional TURP and whether PKRP can replace TURP as the first-line urological intervention remain to be determined. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate these two techniques by comparing the efficacy and safety in patients with BPH-related-LUTS.


  Patients and Methods Top


Publication search

Relevant studies were identified and selected by searching the electronic databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library under the search words "pasmakinetic resection of the prostate," "PKRP," "TURP" and "TURP." We also did a full manual search of references in each relevant article. The article language was restricted to English only. All relevant studies comparing PKRP and TURP were selected in further screening ([Table 1] ).
Table 1: Searching strategies and results

Click here to view


Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following inclusion criteria were applied: (i) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing PKRP and TURP; (ii) BPH with LUTS; and (iii) the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥8 and a maximum flow rate (Q max ) <15 ml s−1 . The exclusion criteria were documented or suspected prostate carcinoma and neurogenic bladder disorders.

Quality assessment of included studies

Two primary investigators completed this procedure from sources mentioned above and all disagreements were resolved by consensus. The methodological quality of RCTs included was scored with the Jadad composite scale. [16],[17] This is a five-point scale, where a score ≤ 2 indicates a low quality while a score ≥ 3 indicates a high quality. [17],[18] This procedure was independently carried out by two investigators, and any disagreement was resolved by consensus.

Data extraction

Two investigators identified and enrolled all the relevant studies from the sources mentioned above according to the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated from each eligible article. The following variables were involved: authors, journal and year of publication, number of patients, Q max , IPSS, operation time, catheterization, hospital stay, irrigated volume, clot retention, transfusion, TUR syndrome, urethral stricture and urinary retention.

Statistical analysis

A formal meta-analysis was made of all RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of PKRP with those of TURP treating patients with LUTS/BPH. Review Manager Software (version 5.1 Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used to analyze the risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes and mean or standardized mean difference for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals. When the heterogeneity appears in a meta-analysis, a random-effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method) was used to calculate pooled estimates; otherwise, a fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel method) was applied according to heterogeneity. [19] The significance of pooled effects was determined by the Z-test and P < 0.05 was considered to display statistical significance. [20],[21] The Cochrane Chi-squared test was used to assess the heterogeneity between trials and the inconsistency (I 2) statistic to assess the extent of the inconsistency. P < 0.10 was considered as the presence of heterogeneity while I[2] was considered acceptable heterogeneity.


  Results Top


We identified 133 potential articles after a primary search in the database, and 18 RCTs, [22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39] including a total of 2119 patients enrolled in this meta-analysis ([Figure 1]). [Table 2] summarizes the preoperative baseline characteristics of included studies. The results of quality assessment of RCTs are shown in [Table 3] . The 18 RCTs all got a Jadad score of 3, because it was not possible to made double-blinding for RCTs. There were no significant differences in IPSS between the two groups at 1-month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after operation ([Figure 2]). The pooled Q max at 1-month suggesting that the PKRP group was statistically superior to that of TURP group, but the pooled Q max between the two groups at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months was no noticeable differences. However, the heterogeneity between the studies was clear ([Figure 3]).
Table 2: Baseline characteristics of included studies

Click here to view
Table 3: The Jadad scale for quality assessment of RCTs

Click here to view
Figure 1: Flowchart showing the selection of studies for meta-analysis.

Click here to view
Figure 2: Pooled estimates of International Prostate Symptom Score at 1-month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months follow-up.

Click here to view
Figure 3: Pooled estimates of Qmax at 1-month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months follow-up.

Click here to view


Catheterization was remarkably less frequent in PKRP group than that in TURP group, operation time and hospital stay was shorter in PKRP group, while there was no notable difference in other perioperative data such as irrigated volume between the two groups. In addition, there was great heterogeneity between the studies ([Figure 4]).
Figure 4: Pooled estimates of perioperative variables.

Click here to view


There was a remarkable difference in TUR syndrome, clot retention and transfusion rate between TURP and PKRP groups. However, there was no notable difference in urinary retention and urethral stricture between the two groups ([Figure 5]). There was no heterogeneity.
Figure 5: Pooled estimates of adverse events.

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Although, TURP is considered safe and effective method for the treatment of LUTS secondary to BPH and has been regarded as the reference standard for decades, its morbidity and related mortality remain a clinical challenge for urologists. Many attempts have been made to search surgical alternatives or advance new resectoscope and electrosurgical devices [22] such as holmium laser enucleation of the prostate, photoselective vaporization of the prostate and thulium laser resection of the prostate, all of which are considered extremely promising technologies. [40],[41],[42]

Plasmakinetic resection of the prostate is another novel electrosurgical technique that was first used for BPH therapy in 2001. [23] Many studies have already proven the efficacy and safety of PKRP. [22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29] In our meta-analysis, we have displayed the overall efficacy and safety of PKRP compared with TURP.

Monopolar TURP has a limitation in treating large prostates, especially those larger than ≥ 80 ml, because it requires a longer operation time. In addition, some irrigation fluid may enter the circulation via the prostate blood vessels opened, eventually leading to the development of the TUR syndrome. Although rare, TUR syndrome is the most dreaded complication of monopolar TURP. The Gyrus PlasmaKinetic System uses a bipolar coaxial system with an active and return electrodes placed on the same axis separated by a ceramic insulator, [24] so the system permits an effective operation because it is immersed in conductive normal saline as the irrigation fluid rather than in glycine or sorbitol. As a result, it decreases the risk of dilutional hyponatremia and TUR syndrome. The present meta-analysis showed that the PKRP group was remarkable shorter in operation time. The reason may be that urologists were now skilled in PKRP, compared with TURP. The rate of TUR syndrome was notably lower in PKRP group than that in TURP group. None of 595 patients in PKRP group developed TUR syndrome. This could be an advantage for procedures with large prostate glands. The complication of urinary stricture was probably related to high ablative energy and violent manipulation. The early irritative symptoms and urinary retention were mainly attributed to urethral edema and obstruction of the residual prostate tissue. There was no statistical difference in the two complications between the two groups. However, there was more clot retention in TURP group than that in PKRP group because of greater thermal damage and more granulation tissue induced by the monopolar current.

Although the catheterization time in PKRP group was remarkably shorter than that in TURP group, there was no statistical difference in bladder irrigation volume between the two groups (P = 0.14), nor was there statistical difference in hospital stay (P = 0.04). The pooled estimates of our meta-analysis gave similar results for PKRP and TURP in IPSS (1-month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months), but the Q max (1-month) was noticeably higher in PKRP group.

Some authors have argued about excessive blood loss in conventional TURP. Bhansali et al.[25] reported that blood loss in TURP group was remarkably higher than that in PKRP, and even higher in cases of larger prostate glands. Nuhoglu et al.[23] believed that less bleeding should be expected in PKRP technique because it both resects the prostate tissue and can controls bleeding. de Sio et al.[37] reported that the mean decrease in hemoglobin level 24 h after operation was lower in PKRP, though the difference was not statistically notable when compared with TURP group.

There are two limitations in our meta-analysis. First, the follow-up periods were not long enough. Only one study [26] reported a 100 months follow-up period, while the other studies had only 1-year follow-ups without including PVR and QoL. Thus, we were unable to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of PKRP. Secondly, the complications were not described sufficiently, such as sexual dysfunction, bladder neck contracture and the re-intervention rate.


  Conclusion Top


The advantage of PKRP over TURP seems to lie in decreasing the risk of TUR syndrome, reducing the time of operation, catheterization and hospital stay, lowering the incidence of transfusion and clot retention, and increasing Q max (1-month). IPSS (1-month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months), Q max (3 months, 6 months and 12 months), urinary retention rate, urinary stricture rate, irrigation volume in PKRP group were similar to those in TURP group. PKRP may anticipatorily prove to be a reliable minimal invasive technique and an alternative electrosurgical procedure for treating BPH.


  Author Contributions Top


KW and YL contributed to the conception, design, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript, critical revision for important intellectual content. JFT participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis. HYZ contributed to the acquisition of data. DFX and YF evaluated the results and supervised the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


  Competing Financial Interests Top


All authors declare no competing interests.

 
  References Top

1.
Roberts RO, Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, Reilly WT, Talley NJ, et al. Natural history of prostatism: high American Urological Association Symptom scores among community-dwelling men and women with urinary incontinence. Urology 1998; 51: 213-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Roehrborn CG, McConnell J, Bonilla J, Rosenblatt S, Hudson PB, et al. Serum prostate specific antigen is a strong predictor of future prostate growth in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. PROSCAR long-term efficacy and safety study. J Urol 2000; 163: 13-20.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Gu FL, Xia TL, Kong XT. Preliminary study of the frequency of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic cancer in China. Urology 1994; 44: 688-91.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Plante M, Wachterman J, Perrapato S. Options for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr 2012; 22: 281-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Kumar R, Malla P, Kumar M. Advances in the design and discovery of drugs for the treatment of prostatic hyperplasia. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2013; 8: 1013-27.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Wasson JH, Reda DJ, Bruskewitz RC, Elinson J, Keller AM, et al. A comparison of transurethral surgery with watchful waiting for moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Transurethral Resection of the Prostate. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 75-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Wei JT, Calhoun E, Jacobsen SJ. Urologic diseases in America project: benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2005; 173: 1256-61.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC, et al. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2011; 185: 1793-803.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Herrmann TR, Liatsikos EN, Nagele U, Traxer O, Merseburger AS. EAU guidelines panel on lasers, technologies. EAU guidelines on laser technologies. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 783-95.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bostanci Y, Kazzazi A, Djavan B. Laser prostatectomy: holmium laser enucleation and photoselective laser vaporization of the prostate. Rev Urol 2013; 15: 1-10.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Lertakyamanee J, Ruksamanee EO, Tantiwong A, Boonsuk K, Nilpradab I, et al. The risk and effectiveness of transurethral resection of prostate. J Med Assoc Thai 2002; 85: 1288-95.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC. Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients 1989. J Urol 2002; 167: 999-1003.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) - incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 969-79.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Zhu G, Xie C, Wang X, Tang X. Bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of prostate in 132 consecutive patients with large gland: three-year follow-up results. Urology 2012; 79: 397-402.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Simpson RJ. Benign prostatic hyperplasia. Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47: 235-40.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1-12.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 982-9.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352: 609-13.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 719-48.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-88.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Aurelio T. Assessing the influence of a single study in the meta-analysis estimate. Stata Tech Bull 1999; 8: 15-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Iori F, Franco G, Leonardo C, Laurenti C, Tubaro A, et al. Bipolar transurethral resection of prostate: clinical and urodynamic evaluation. Urology 2008; 71: 252-5.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Nuhoglu B, Ayyildiz A, Karagüzel E, Cebeci O, Germiyanoglu C. Plasmakinetic prostate resection in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia: results of 1-year follow-up. Int J Urol 2006; 13: 21-4.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Autorino R, Damiano R, Di Lorenzo G, Quarto G, Perdonà S, et al. Four-year outcome of a prospective randomised trial comparing bipolar plasmakinetic and monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 922-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Bhansali M, Patankar S, Dobhada S, Khaladkar S. Management of large (>60 g) prostate gland: plasmakinetic superpulse (bipolar) versus conventional (monopolar) transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol 2009; 23: 141-5.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Muslumanoglu AY, Yuruk E, Binbay M, Akman T. Transurethral resection of prostate with plasmakinetic energy: 100 months results of a prospective randomized trial. BJU Int 2012; 110: 546-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Erturhan S, Erbagci A, Seckiner I, Yagci F, Ustun A. Plasmakinetic resection of the prostate versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized trial with 1-year follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2007; 10: 97-100.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Patankar S, Jamkar A, Dobhada S, Gorde V. PlasmaKinetic Superpulse transurethral resection versus conventional transurethral resection of prostate. J Endourol 2006; 20: 215-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Seckiner I, Yesilli C, Akduman B, Altan K, Mungan NA. A prospective randomized study for comparing bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate with standard TURP. Urol Int 2006; 76: 139-43.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Akçayöz M, Kaygisiz O, Akdemir O, Aki FT, Adsan O, et al. Comparison of transurethral resection and plasmakinetic transurethral resection applications with regard to fluid absorption amounts in benign prostate hyperplasia. Urol Int 2006; 77: 143-7.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Engeler DS, Schwab C, Neyer M, Grün T, Reissigl A, et al. Bipolar versus monopolar TURP: a prospective controlled study at two urology centers. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010; 13: 285-91.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Giulianelli R, Albanesi L, Attisani F, Gentile BC, Vincenti G, et al. Comparative randomized study on the efficaciousness of endoscopic bipolar prostate resection versus monopolar resection technique 3 year follow-up. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2013; 85: 86-91.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Huang X, Wang L, Wang XH, Shi HB, Zhang XJ, et al. Bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate causes deeper coagulation depth and less bleeding than monopolar transurethral prostatectomy. Urology 2012; 80: 1116-20.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Lv L, Wang L, Fan M, Ju W, Pang Z, et al. Two-year outcome of high-risk benign prostate hyperplasia patients treated with transurethral prostate resection by plasmakinetic or conventional procedure. Urology 2012; 80: 389-94.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Sinanoglu O, Ekici S, Tatar MN, Turan G, Keles A, et al. Postoperative outcomes of plasmakinetic transurethral resection of the prostate compared to monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with comorbidities. Urology 2012; 80: 402-6.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Tefekli A, Muslumanoglu AY, Baykal M, Binbay M, Tas A, et al. A hybrid technique using bipolar energy in transurethral prostate surgery: a prospective, randomized comparison. J Urol 2005; 174: 1339-43.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
de Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, Damiano R, Perdonà S, et al. Gyrus bipolar versus standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Urology 2006; 67: 69-72.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Yoon CJ, Kim JY, Moon KH, Jung HC, Park TC. Transurethral resection of the prostate with a bipolar tissue management system compared to conventional monopolar resectoscope: one-year outcome. Yonsei Med J 2006; 47: 715-20.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Kong CH, Ibrahim MF, Zainuddin ZM. A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing bipolar plasma kinetic resection of the prostate versus conventional monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Ann Saudi Med 2009; 29: 429-32.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Yin L, Teng J, Huang CJ, Zhang X, Xu D. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Endourol 2013; 27: 604-11.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Mohanty NK, Vasudeva P, Kumar A, Prakash S, Jain M, et al. Photoselective vaporization of prostate vs. Transurethral resection of prostate: a prospective, randomized study with one year follow-up. Indian J Urol 2012; 28: 307-12.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Xia SJ, Zhuo J, Sun XW, Han BM, Shao Y, et al. Thulium laser versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 382-89.  Back to cited text no. 42
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


This article has been cited by
1 A Preliminary, Multicenter, Prospective and Real World Study on the Hemostasis, Coagulation, and Safety of Hemocoagulase Bothrops Atrox in Patients Undergoing Transurethral Bipolar Plasmakinetic Prostatectomy
Bing-Hui Li,Zhao-Jun Yu,Chao-Yang Wang,Hao Zi,Xiao-Dong Li,Xing-Huan Wang,Xuan-Yi Ren,Tong-Zu Liu,Hang Zheng
Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2019; 10
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 The RevoLix™2?µm Continuous Wave Laser Vaporesection for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Five Year Follow-Up
Jiemin Si,Baojun Gu,Zhong Chen,Qiang Fu
Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Transurethral enucleation of prostate with button electrode plasmakinetic vaporization for the treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Bo Peng,Jianhua Huang,Guangchun Wang,Haimin Zhang,Min Liu
Scientific Reports. 2016; 6: 39583
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Five-Year Follow-Up Study of Transurethral Plasmakinetic Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Yangyang Hu,Xuecheng Dong,Guangchun Wang,Jianhua Huang,Min Liu,Bo Peng
Journal of Endourology. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Patients and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Author Contributions
Competing Financ...
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2571    
    Printed56    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded432    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]