Comparison of Safety Outcomes of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) in Patients with Prostate Size Above and Below 80 grams
Keywords:
N\AAbstract
Objective(s): This study aims to compare the safety outcomes in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with prostate sizes above and below 80 grams.
Study Methodology: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Kidney Center Postgraduate Training Institute over a two-year period. The study included 291 patients aged 45 to 85 years who underwent TURP, with prostate sizes greater than 30 grams. An arbitrary size cutoff of 80 grams for prostrate size was used in our study. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A consisted of patients with prostates below 80 grams, while Group B included those with prostates above 80 grams. Pre- and post-operative hemoglobin levels, serum sodium levels and complications were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 21.0. Statistical significance was determined with a p-value ≤0.05.
Results: The mean prostate size for Group A was 53.4 ± 13.2 grams, and for Group B, 104.6 ± 24.8 grams. Both groups experienced a significant reduction in post-operative lab parameters, including hemoglobin and sodium levels (p < 0.001). However, Group B exhibited a significantly larger mean drop in hemoglobin (2.1 ± 1.3) compared to Group A (1.5 ± 1.1) (p < 0.001). Despite these differences in hemoglobin levels, other complications—such as the need for blood transfusions (p=0.415), sepsis (p= 0.999), and TUR syndrome (p= 0.651)—showed no significant differences between the groups.
Conclusions: TURP is a safe and effective treatment for BPH in patients with prostate sizes both above and below 80 grams. Despite a greater drop in hemoglobin in larger prostates, complication rates remain similar, making TURP a viable option for patients with larger prostates, especially in low-resource settings.
Downloads
References
Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, Emberton M, Gravas S, Michel MC, et al. EAU guidelines on the treatment and follow-up of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. European urology. 2013;64(1):118-40.
Jiang Y-L, Qian L-J. Transurethral resection of the prostate versus prostatic artery embolization in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis. BMC urology. 2019;19(1):1-8.
Muzzonigro G, Milanese G, Minardi D, Yehia M, Galosi AB, Dellabella M. Safety and efficacy of transurethral resection of prostate glands up to 150 ml: a prospective comparative study with 1 year of followup. The Journal of urology. 2004;172(2):611-5.
Joshi H, De Jong I, Karmacharya R, Shrestha B, Shrestha R. Outcomes of transurethral resection of the prostate in benign prostatic hyperplasia comparing prostate size of more than 80 grams to prostate size less than 80 grams. Kathmandu University medical journal. 2014;12(3):163-7.
Sarma AV, Wei JT. Benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms. New England Journal of Medicine. 2012;367(3):248-57.
Bachmann A, Muir GH, Wyler SF, Rieken M. Surgical benign prostatic hyperplasia trials: the future is now. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):677-9.
Yucel M, Aras B, Yalcinkaya S, Hatipoglu NK, Aras E. Conventional monopolar transurethral resection of prostate in patients with large prostate (≥ 80 grams). Central European journal of urology. 2013;66(3):303-8.
de la Rosette JJ, Alivizatos G, Madersbacher S, Perachino M, Thomas D, Desgrandchamps F, et al. EAU Guidelines on benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). European urology. 2001;40(3):256-63.
Roehrborn CG, Bartsch G, Kirby R, Andriole G, Boyle P, De La Rosette J, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comparative, international overview. Urology. 2001;58(5):642-50.
Committee APG. AUA guideline on management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (2003). Chapter 1: Diagnosis and treatment recommendations. The Journal of urology. 2003;170(2):530-47.
Serretta V, Morgia G, Fondacaro L, Curto G, Pirritano D, Melloni D, et al. Open prostatectomy for benign prostatic enlargement in southern Europe in the late 1990s: a contemporary series of 1800 interventions. Urology. 2002;60(4):623-7.
Barba M, Leyh H, Hartung R. New technologies in transurethral resection of the prostate. Current opinion in urology. 2000;10(1):9-14.
Nouira Y, Kbaier I, Attyaoui F, Horchani A. How did the endoscopic video camera change our practice in transurethral resection of the prostate? A retrospective study of 200 cases. Journal of endourology. 2002;16(10):763-5.
Khan M, Nesbitt AL, Loganathan A, Antoniou S, Evans G, Smith P, et al. Comparing Outcomes of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Men with Greater Than or Less Than 100 cc Prostate Volume: A Single-Centre Study. Journal of Urological Surgery. 2021;8(2):92-7.
Chahal HS, Kaur S, Mittal V, Jaura M, Bansal N, Sharma S. Comparison of Outcome after Transurethral Resection of Small Versus Large Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.
Roehrborn CG. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: an overview. Reviews in urology. 2005;7(Suppl 9):S3.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
