Comparison between a transurethral prostate split and transurethral prostate resection for benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment in a small prostate volume: a prospective controlled study.

Content Provider	Europe PMC
Author	Wang, Bohan Zhang, Shigeng Sun, Chengfang Du, Chuanjun He, Gaofei Wen, Jiaming
Copyright Year	2020
Abstract	BackgroundTransurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was considered the golden standard to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for decades. However, TURP was associated with low efficiency to alleviate the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and a significantly higher risk of bladder neck contracture (BNC) for patients with small-volume BPH. Our study aims to compare the therapeutic effect of a transurethral split of the prostate (TUSP) with TURP for patients with small-volume BPH (<30 mL).MethodsIn this study, 101 small-volume BPH patients were randomly divided into two groups (TUSP and TURP group). The patient’s baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. The follow-up was done at six months, one year and two years after surgical treatment.ResultsNo significant differences were observed between the two groups for the baseline characteristics, including age, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, concurrent disease, post-void residual (PVR), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), international prostate symptoms score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL) score. The operative time and hemoglobin decrease were significantly lower in the TUSP group compared to the TURP group. However, no significant differences were observed between both groups for catheterization time, postoperative hospital stay, and incidence of transurethral resection syndrome (TURS). However, of the late complications, the incidence of BNC in the TUSP group was significantly lower than the TURP group. No significant differences were found between both groups for other complications, including postoperative bleeding, micturition urgency, micturition frequency, micturition pain, urinary tract infection, recatheterization, transient incontinence, and continuous incontinence. Follow-up results showed that the IPSS of the TUSP group was significantly lower than the TURP group, while the Qmax of the TUSP group was significantly higher than the TURP group.ConclusionsThis study shows that TUSP may be an efficient and safe treatment for small-volume BPH (<30 mL) with a lower incidence of postoperative BNC and better longtime clinical outcomes than TURP. It suggested that TUSP could be an ideal treatment choice for small-volume BPH.
ISSN	23055839
Volume Number	8
PubMed Central reference number	PMC7475497
Issue Number	16
PubMed reference number	32953816
Journal	Annals of Translational Medicine [Ann Transl Med]
e-ISSN	23055847
DOI	10.21037/atm-20-5462
Language	English
Publisher	AME Publishing Company
Publisher Date	2020-08-01
Access Restriction	Open
Rights License	Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0. 2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Subject Keyword	Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) transurethral split of the prostate (TUSP) transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) small-volume prostate bladder neck contracture (BNC)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Medicine