Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: Background:Transurethral 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). Methods:In 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. Results:No 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. Conclusions:This 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.

SUBMITTER: Wang B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7475497 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Wang Bohan B Zhang Shigeng S Sun Chengfang C Du Chuanjun C He Gaofei G Wen Jiaming J

Annals of translational medicine 20200801 16

<h4>Background</h4>Transurethral 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 ...[more]

PMID: 32953816

Similar Datasets

Project description:Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate (TUPKP) is one of the foremost surgical procedures for the treatment of BPH. It has become well established in clinical practice with good efficacy and safety. In 2018, we issued the guideline "2018 Standard Edition". However much new direct evidence has now emerged and this may change some of previous recommendations. The time is ripe to develop new evidence-based guidelines, so we formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members posed 31 questions relevant to the management of TUPKP for BPH covering the following areas: questions relevant to the perioperative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of TUPKP in the treatment of BPH, postoperative complications and the level of surgeons' surgical skill. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of TUPKP for BPH, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the grade criteria by the European Association of Urology. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of an ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 36 statements. Among them, 23 carried strong recommendations, and 13 carried weak recommendations for the stated procedure. They covered questions relevant to the aforementioned three areas. The preoperative period for TUPKP in the treatment of BPH included indications and contraindications for TUPKP, precautions for preoperative preparation in patients with renal impairment and urinary tract infection due to urinary retention, and preoperative prophylactic use of antibiotics. Questions relevant to the intraoperative period incorporated surgical operation techniques and prevention and management of bladder explosion. The application to different populations incorporating the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in the treatment of normal volume (< 80 ml) and large-volume (≥ 80 ml) BPH compared with transurethral urethral resection prostate, transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate and open prostatectomy; the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in high-risk populations and among people taking anticoagulant (antithrombotic) drugs. Questions relevant to the postoperative period incorporated the time and speed of flushing, the time indwelling catheters are needed, principles of postoperative therapeutic use of antibiotics, follow-up time and follow-up content. Questions related to complications incorporated types of complications and their incidence, postoperative leukocyturia, the treatment measures for the perforation and extravasation of the capsule, transurethral resection syndrome, postoperative bleeding, urinary catheter blockage, bladder spasm, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, rectal injury during surgery, postoperative erectile dysfunction and retrograde ejaculation. Final questions were related to surgeons' skills when performing TUPKP for the treatment of BPH. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for patients having TUPKP for the treatment of BPH.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of patient reported and functional outcomes.DesignRandomised, open label, non-inferiority trial.SettingUrology and radiology departments of a Swiss tertiary care centre.Participants103 patients aged ≥40 years with refractory lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomised between 11 February 2014 and 24 May 2017; 48 and 51 patients reached the primary endpoint 12 weeks after PAE and TURP, respectively.InterventionsPAE performed with 250-400 μm microspheres under local anaesthesia versus monopolar TURP performed under spinal or general anaesthesia.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was change in international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) from baseline to 12 weeks after surgery; a difference of less than 3 points between treatments was defined as non-inferiority for PAE and tested with a one sided t test. Secondary outcomes included further questionnaires, functional measures, magnetic resonance imaging findings, and adverse events; changes from baseline to 12 weeks were compared between treatments with two sided tests for superiority.ResultsMean reduction in IPSS from baseline to 12 weeks was -9.23 points after PAE and -10.77 points after TURP. Although the difference was less than 3 points (1.54 points in favour of TURP (95% confidence interval -1.45 to 4.52)), non-inferiority of PAE could not be shown (P=0.17). None of the patient reported secondary outcomes differed significantly between treatments when tested for superiority; IPSS also did not differ significantly (P=0.31). At 12 weeks, PAE was less effective than TURP regarding changes in maximum rate of urinary flow (5.19 v 15.34 mL/s; difference 10.15 (95% confidence interval -14.67 to -5.63); P<0.001), postvoid residual urine (-86.36 v -199.98 mL; 113.62 (39.25 to 187.98); P=0.003), prostate volume (-12.17 v -30.27 mL; 18.11 (10.11 to 26.10); P<0.001), and desobstructive effectiveness according to pressure flow studies (56% v 93% shift towards less obstructive category; P=0.003). Fewer adverse events occurred after PAE than after TURP (36 v 70 events; P=0.003).ConclusionsThe improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia seen 12 weeks after PAE is close to that after TURP. PAE is associated with fewer complications than TURP but has disadvantages regarding functional outcomes, which should be considered when selecting patients. Further comparative study findings, including longer follow-up, should be evaluated before PAE can be considered as a routine treatment.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02054013.

Project description:ObjectivesOveractive bladder (OAB) symptoms are often encountered in patients after transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P) or transurethral incision of the prostate (TUI-P) for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Either antimuscarinics or β-3 agonist has been found effective in relieving OAB symptoms. However, urologists usually do not prescribe such medication immediately after TUR-P or TUI-P to avoid an increase in postvoid residual and risk of urinary tract infection. If OAB medication can be used and adverse events (AEs) can be reduced to minimum, patients' quality of life after bladder outlet obstruction surgery could be improved. This study compared the safety and efficacy between solifenacin and mirabegron in men undergoing TUR-P or TUI-P.Materials and methodsThis prospective, randomized trial compared the safety and efficacy of OAB medication on the reduction in Urgency Severity Score (USS), OAB Symptoms Score (OABSS), International Prostate Symptom Score, and urgency urinary incontinence episodes in men with BPO undergoing surgical intervention. All patients could void smoothly after catheter removal and were randomly received daily solifenacin 5 mg, mirabegron 50 mg, or no interventions for 4 weeks. At 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively, participants' OAB symptoms and AEs were evaluated.ResultsA total of 57 men were enrolled in this study with a mean age of 70.8 ± 6.1 years. At 2 weeks postoperatively, USS (1.56 ± 1.72 vs. 2.39 ± 1.72 vs. 2.26 ± 1.73, P < 0.011) and OABSS (5.33 ± 3.65 vs. 7.67 ± 4.19 vs. 8.58 ± 4.31, P < 0.000) were significantly reduced in patients taking solifenacin, mirabegron, or control, respectively. Two patients in the solifenacin group developed urinary retention. However, the changes of variables at 4 weeks postoperatively were insignificant among the three groups.ConclusionSolifenacin and mirabegron are two different drug classes both equally effective in treating immediate OAB symptoms after TUR-P or TUI-P. However, OAB symptoms could be relieved at 4 weeks without any medication. Considering AEs, β-3 agonist has a more favorable safety profile than antimuscarinics.

Project description:BackgroundBipolar Transurethral Enucleation of the Prostate (B-TUEP) is recommended as a first-choice treatment for benign prostatic obstruction in prostates >80 ml. Differently, B-TUEP is only considered as an alternative option after TURP for smaller prostates (30-80 ml). The aim of our study is to assess the relation between prostate size and surgical outcomes after B-TUEP.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of data collected from 172 patients submitted to B-TUEP. Patients were segregated according to tertiles of prostate volume (PV) (≤60 ml, 61-110 ml, >110 ml). For each group we evaluated enucleation efficacy (enucleated weight/enucleation time), complication rates, urinary and sexual function parameters. Functional and sexual parameters were compared between groups at baseline, 1 and 3 months follow up. Descriptive statistics and linear and logistic regression models tested the association between PV and postoperative complications/outcomes.ResultsOperative time and weight of enucleated adenomas increased along with prostate volumes (all p≤0.01). Enucleation efficacy was higher in men with PV >110 ml compared to other groups (p≤0.001). Length of hospital stay, catheterization time and rates of postoperative complications, such as transfusion and clot evacuation rates and bladder neck/urethral strictures, were comparable between groups. Urinary symptoms improved at 1-and 3-months in each group as compared to baseline evaluation (all p<0.01) but they did not differ according to PV. In each group maximum urinary flow and post-void residual volume significantly improved at 3 months compared to baseline (all p≤0.01), without differences according to PV. Sexual symptoms were similar between groups at each follow up assessment. At multivariable linear and logistic regression analysis, prostate volume was not associated with postoperative functional outcomes and complications. Conversely, patient's comorbid status and antiplatelet/anticoagulation use were independently associated with postoperative complications.ConclusionAccording to our findings, B-TUEP should be considered a "size independent procedure" as it can provide symptom relief in men with prostates of all sizes with the same efficacy and safety profile.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of green-light laser photoselective vaporisation of the prostate (PVP) compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis, conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library until October 2018.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials and prospective studies comparing the safety and efficacy of PVP versus TURP for LUTS manifesting through BPH.Data extraction and synthesisPerioperative parameters, complications rates and functional outcomes including treatment-related adverse events such as International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual (PVR), quality of life (QoL) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).Results22 publications consisting of 2665 patients were analysed. Pooled analysis revealed PVP is associated with reduced blood loss, transfusion, clot retention, TUR syndrome, capsular perforation, catheterisation time and hospitalisation, but also with a higher reintervention rate and longer intervention duration (all p<0.05). No significant difference in IPSS, Qmax, QoL, PVR or IIEF at 3, 24, 36 or 60 months was identified. There was a significant difference in QoL at 6 months (MD=-0.08; 95% CI -0.13 to -0.02; p=0.007), and IPSS (MD = -0.10; 95% CI -0.15 to -0.05; p<0.0001) and Qmax (MD=0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.19; p=0.03) at 12 months, although these differences were not clinically relevant.ConclusionPVP is an effective alternative, holding additional safety benefits. PVP has equivalent long-term IPSS, Qmax, QoL, PVR, IIEF efficacy and fewer complications. The main drawbacks are dysuria and reintervention, although both can be managed with non-invasive techniques. The additional shortcoming is that PVP does not acquire histological tissue examination which removes an opportunity to identify prostate cancer.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets