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

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 (Q), 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 Q 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.