2017 transurethral prostatomy versus transurethral prostatectomy in small prostatic adenoma long -term follow-up

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy and New Technology II1 Apr 20122017 TRANSURETHRAL PROSTATOMY VERSUS TRANSURETHRAL PROSTATECTOMY IN SMALL PROSTATIC ADENOMA LONG -TERM FOLLOW-UP Osman Abdelkader Osman AbdelkaderOsman Abdelkader Fakous, Egypt More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2180AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy of transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP), in comparison to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with small benign prostatic adenoma based on long-term follow up. METHODS In a prospective randomized trial; 86 patients with bladder outlet obstructive symptoms caused by a prostate less than 30 grams. Alternatively underwent transurethral incision or transurethral resection, forming two cohort's group. Both groups were comparable as regard their preoperative data (prostate weight, IPSS, voided volume, Q max and post voiding residual volume) they were also followed postoperatively for 48 month and compared for morbidity, operative time, catheterization period, hospital stay, max flow rate, symptom score, voided volume, post voiding residual volume, and the rate of reoperation. RESULTS Out of 86 patients 80 patients completed the study 40 patients in each group. The mean age of patients in group I (TURP) was 63.6 years and the mean age in group II (TUIP) was 66.2 years. Preoperative parameters in both groups show no significant statistical difference regarding urodynamic parameters and prostate weight. Long-term follow up of patients on both groups after 48 months reveal a significant statistical difference in relation to IPSS as it increased from 7.34 to 19.4 and from 7.1 to 18.04 in TURP (Group I) and TUIP (Group II) respectively, the voided volume increased from 161ml to 356 ml and from 161 ml to 341ml, The Q - Max increased from 8.34 to 18.33 and 8.32 to 16.6, the post voiding residual urine decreased from 79 ml to 131ml, and from 81ml to 131 ml, the catheter time was 3.18 days and 2.23 days, the hospital stay was 3.72 days and 2.63 days, respectively,. The operative time was up to one hour in TURP, while it was 21 min in TUIP with a significant difference between both groups. Only two patient in TURP group received blood transfusion. Twenty one patients complaining from retrograde ejaculation in TURP while 9 patients complaining after TUIP, according to erectile dysfunction 8 patients complaining from it after TURP while just three patients complaining after TUIP, with a significant difference between both groups. The re-operation rate was three in each group with no significant difference between both groups. CONCLUSIONS TUIP and TURP for small prostatic adenoma less than 30 gm. were equally effective in symptomatic improvement. TUIP associated with reduction of adverse effect, cost effectiveness, less operative time, less hospital stay and short catheterization period. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e814 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Osman Abdelkader Fakous, Egypt More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...