Transurethral vaportrode electrovaporization of the prostate: Physical principles, technique, and results

Transurethral Electrovaporization of the Prostate vs. Transurethral Resection

“…Urinary incontinence has not been previously described after TVP [2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11], even if smaller series have been evaluated; the reason for this difference could be explained by the technique of vaporization adopted, which was in most cases surely extensive, as demonstrated also by the occurrence of one case of capsular perforation; the reason for the higher incidence of incontinence could only be postulated.…”

“…The particular shape of the Vaportrode, a grooved roller electrode, should mean that the electrosurgical current is concentrated on the outside edges of the ridges of the grooved surface at the point where the electrode is in contact with the prostatic tissue: this produces rapid and complete vaporization of the intracellular fluid [10], with consequent burst of the cells themselves due to the damage of the cellular membrane. When the electrode is moved onto untreated tissue, new cells undergo the same process and a channel is created in the prostatic tissue.…”

“…Therefore, many alternatives have been proposed and investigated to find an alternative to TURP: transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TVP) has been recently proposed as an alternative to TURP in the treatment of BPH and preliminary results were encouraging, showing sufficient efficacy and reduction of morbidity [2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11]. …”

Immunohistochemical evaluation of the safety of transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate and its clinical results

“…7,9,15 In TUEVP prostatic tissue is vaporized by rapidly raising the temperature of intracellular water above boiling point to induce steam production and consequently cell explosion. This process is dependent upon several variables such as higher peak voltages, blended wave form and high power current generator.…”

“…In our series, the lack of bleeding requiring transfusion and the absence of symptoms related to¯uid absorption con®rmed the well documented safety of TUEVP. 7,10,15,18 Because of the relative decrease in bleeding during the procedure and the immediate postoperative period, catheterization time and length of hospital stay were signi®cantly reduced. However in our experience catheter removal occurred signi®cantly later and was associated with a signi®cant high recatheterization rate following early removal (1 ± 2 postoperative days) in comparison with previous reports from Kaplan.…”