An interesting but unconclusive comparison here:
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Prostate/laser.html
Huw
TAP - 11 Dec 2004 15:12 GMT
This comparison is nearly useless. It lumps all lasers into one category.
It is well known that many types of lasers have been used for BPH for more
than 20 years. But it wasn't until 2002 when the 80W KTP (Laserscope PVP)
became available that a laser with significant advantages over TURP
appeared.
Patrick
> An interesting but unconclusive comparison here:
> http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Prostate/laser.html
> Huw
Jack - 11 Dec 2004 16:36 GMT
The next time I am near our local hospital I'm going into their library and
look at the full article published in the Journal of Urology 2003, vol. 169,
pgs 210-215. I be amazed if that Journal allowed an article to be published
without having the authors define the categories of their subjects and
exactly what lasers they were using. It appears that Bandolier Journal did
a very poor job of summarizing the Urology article, or if the original
article is as poor as Bandolier says, they why bother to summarize it.
Jack
> An interesting but unconclusive comparison here:
> http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Prostate/laser.html
> Huw