1981 ten year re-treatment rate for transurethral incision of the prostate

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy and New Technology I1 Apr 20121981 TEN YEAR RE-TREATMENT RATE FOR TRANSURETHRAL INCISION OF THE PROSTATE Ahmed Saeed Goolam, Philip J. Bergersen, Thomas Dean, Peter Langdon, and Henry Woo Ahmed Saeed GoolamAhmed Saeed Goolam Wahroonga, Australia More articles by this author , Philip J. BergersenPhilip J. Bergersen Wahroonga, Australia More articles by this author , Thomas DeanThomas Dean Wahroonga, Australia More articles by this author , Peter LangdonPeter Langdon Wahroonga, Australia More articles by this author , and Henry WooHenry Woo Sydney, Australia More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2141AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Transuretheral Incision of the Prostate (TUIP) or bladder neck incision (BNI) is established as a surgical option for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with smaller prostates. The efficacy of this procedure has also been compared to conventional Transuretheral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) with most studies demonstrating an equivalent functional improvement but no significant long terms studies have been published. Most of these studies however have looked at the short term results with only one study comparing the outcomes in BNI versus TURP at a maximum period of ten years but with a mean follow up of only 49 months (Miller, Edyvane et al. 1992). The longest mean follow-up period for these studies was 96 months (Suri, Srivastava et al. 2005). This study aimed to review the re-treatment rates for TUIP where the minimum follow up was a period of 10 years. METHODS Institutional ethics approval was obtained. The Sydney Adventist Hospital (SAH) medical records were accessed identifying patients having undergone a TUIP from January 1995 to December 2001. The surgical re-treatment for recurrent LUTS was assessed as the primary outcome. Patient records were reviewed from consultant's private rooms followed by questionnaires sent to patients. Exclusion criteria included prostate cancer, bladder neck stricture, lower urinary tract malignancy, pelvic radiation or prior history of surgical treatment for bladder outlet obstruction. RESULTS To date, 94 patients who underwent a TUIP or BNI between 1995 and 2001. Of these, 11 patients were identified with a diagnosis of prostate cancer (2 having undergone radiation therapy and 5 having undergone surgery). A further 7 patients had prior surgery for LUTS. Twenty patients had missing records which are continuing to be chased. Of a total of 56 patients, 5 patients (8.9%) had undergone re-operation for their symptoms. Of these, 4 (7%) underwent transurethral resection of the prostate and the remaining patient had a further TUIP performed. The median time to re-operation was 28 months with a range of 6 to 95 months. The median age of patients at the time of their initial procedure was 62 years. The median follow-up period for our cohort of patients was 142 months with a range from 132 to 193 months. CONCLUSIONS Our study has demonstrated so far that 8.9% of patient required re-operation for recurrence of their LUTS which supports TUIP having sustained long term results and similar to the long term results of TURP. It appears that this procedure remains an effective treatment choice for men with small prostates. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e799 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ahmed Saeed Goolam Wahroonga, Australia More articles by this author Philip J. Bergersen Wahroonga, Australia More articles by this author Thomas Dean Wahroonga, Australia More articles by this author Peter Langdon Wahroonga, Australia More articles by this author Henry Woo Sydney, Australia More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...