Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Comparison of outcomes after TURP versus photoselective vaporization of the prostate with respect to trainee involvement utilizing ACS NSQIP

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 17, pages 227–232 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background:

Large multicenter studies comparing outcomes between TURP and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) are sparse, with no studies having compared the influence of trainee involvement on these outcomes. Our objectives were to assess 30-day outcomes after TURP and PVP with respect to trainee involvement using an independent national surgical database.

Methods:

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data (2005–2011), 7893 men were identified who underwent TURP or PVP. Regression models were constructed to assess associations between surgical approach, risk-adjusted morbidity and individual complications. Relationships between operative approach, operative duration and duration of stay were also examined and subdivided based upon trainee level.

Results:

Of 7893 patients, 4950 (62.7%) underwent TURP and 2943 (37.3%) underwent PVP. TURP patients were older, more likely to have diabetes, cancer, history of steroid use and preoperative transfusion compared with PVP patients, who were more likely to have coronary artery disease or bleeding disorders. Risk-adjusted overall morbidity was similar; however, PVP was associated with less pneumonia (0.2% vs 0.5%, P<0.015), bleeding requiring transfusion (0.5% vs 1.8%, P<0.001) and return to the operating room (1.5% vs 2.2%, P<0.022). PVP patients also had shorter length of stay (0.8 vs 2.1 days, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in outcomes when a trainee was involved. Operative duration was similar for TURP and PVP when performed by an attending alone (52 vs 52 min, P<0.001), but was longer with trainee involvement, regardless of post-graduate year (PGY) level (P<0.001). Comparison of operative duration among trainee subgroups demonstrated longer operative times for the PGY 6–9 subgroup performing PVP when compared with other subgroups (P<0.003).

Conclusions:

Within ACS NSQIP hospitals, TURP and PVP demonstrated similar risk-adjusted overall morbidity. Despite longer operative times for TURP and PVP with trainee involvement, there were no significant differences in outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Meigs JB, Mohr B, Barry MJ, Collins MM, McKinlay JB . Risk factors for clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia in a community-based population of healthy aging men. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 935–944.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC, Donnell RF et al. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2011; 185: 1793–1803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Strope SA, Yang L, Nepple KG, Andriole GL, Owens PL . Population based comparative effectiveness of transurethral resection of the prostate and laser therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2012; 187: 1341–1345.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lynch M, Sriprasad S, Subramonian K, Thompson P . Postoperative haemorrhage following transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP). Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010; 92: 555–558.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Capitan C, Blazquez C, Martin MD, Hernandez V, de la Pena E, Llorente C . GreenLight HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 734–739.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Woo HH . Photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 120-W lithium triborate laser in enlarged prostates (&gt;120 cc). BJU Int 2011; 108: 860–863.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sandhu JS, Ng CK, Gonzalez RR, Kaplan SA, Te AE . Photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy in men receiving anticoagulants. J Endourol 2005; 19: 1196–1198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Al-Ansari A, Younes N, Sampige VP, Al-Rumaihi K, Ghafouri A, Gul T et al. GreenLight HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial with midterm follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 349–355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dusing MW, Krambeck AE, Terry C, Matlaga BR, Miller NL, Humphreys MR et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: efficiency gained by experience and operative technique. J Urol 2010; 184: 635–640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khuri SF . The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery 2005; 138: 837–843.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Papandria D, Rhee D, Ortega G, Zhang Y, Gorgy A, Makary MA et al. Assessing trainee impact on operative time for common general surgical procedures in ACS-NSQIP. J Surg Educ 2012; 69: 149–155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rowell KS, Turrentine FE, Hutter MM, Khuri SF, Henderson WG . Use of national surgical quality improvement program data as a catalyst for quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204: 1293–1300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Teng J, Zhang D, Li Y, Yin L, Wang K, Cui X et al. Photoselective vaporization with the green light laser vs transurethral resection of the prostate for treating benign prostate hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2013; 111: 312–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Volpe MA, Fromer D, Kaplan SA . Holmium and interstitial lasers for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a laser revival. Curr Opin Urol 2001; 11: 43–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuntz RM, Ahyai S, Lehrich K, Fayad A . Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 patients. J Urol 2004; 172: 1012–1016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fraundorfer MR, Gilling PJ . Holmium: YAG laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation: preliminary results. Eur Urol 1998; 33: 69–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gilling PJ, Kennett K, Das AK, Thompson D, Fraundorfer MR . Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) combined with transurethral tissue morcellation: an update on the early clinical experience. J Endourol 1998; 12: 457–459.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Raval MV, Wang X, Cohen ME, Ingraham AM, Bentrem DJ, Dimick JB et al. The influence of resident involvement on surgical outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 212: 889–898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Advani V, Ahad S, Gonczy C, Markwell S, Hassan I . Does resident involvement effect surgical times and complication rates during laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis? An analysis of 16,849 cases from the ACS-NSQIP. Am J Surg 2012; 203: 347–351 discussion 351-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Herrick BW, Yap RL . It is safe to teach residents laser prostate surgery in the private practice setting. Urology 2013; 81: 629–632.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are appreciative of the Tripler Army Medical Center NSQIP Surgical Clinical Nurse Reviewer, Melanie S Alano, BSN, PHN, LNC, for her assistance throughout this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, USA

    S P Olcese, R Derosa, S Q Kern, J R Sterbis & L P McMann

  2. Department of Clinical Investigation, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, USA

    M B Lustik

Authors
  1. S P Olcese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R Derosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S Q Kern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M B Lustik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J R Sterbis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L P McMann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S P Olcese.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olcese, S., Derosa, R., Kern, S. et al. Comparison of outcomes after TURP versus photoselective vaporization of the prostate with respect to trainee involvement utilizing ACS NSQIP. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17, 227–232 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.13

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.13

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links