African Journal of Urology (2012) 18, 29–33
Pan African Urological Surgeons’ Association
African Journal of Urology www.ees.elsevier.com/afju www.sciencedirect.com
Transurethral incision versus transurethral resection of the prostate in small prostatic adenoma: Long-term follow-up O. Abd-El Kader a , K. Mohy El Den b,∗ , A. El Nashar a , A. Hussein a , E. Yehya a a b
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Egypt Department of Urology, Fayoum University, Egypt
Received 24 August 2011; received in revised form 11 February 2012; accepted 17 February 2012
KEYWORDS TURP; TUIP; Small prostate
Abstract Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with small benign prostate adenoma, based on long-term follow-up. Patients and methods: We prospectively randomized 86 men with bladder outlet obstruction symptoms caused by a prostate less than 30 g to undergo TUIP or TURP. The following preoperative parameters were evaluated: prostate weight, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), voided volume, maximum flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual volume (PVR). Postoperatively the patients were followed up for 48 months and the following data were collected: morbidity, operative time, catheterization period, hospital stay, Qmax, IPSS, voided volume, PVR and reoperation rate. Results: A total of 80 of the 86 patients completed the study: 40 patients in each group. The mean age of patients in group I (TURP) and group II (TUIP) was 63.6 and 66.2 years, respectively. Preoperative parameters in both groups showed no statistically significant differences with regard to uroflow parameters and prostate weight. At 48 months follow-up the mean voided volume increased from 161 ml to 356 ml in group I and from 161 ml to 341 ml in group II, Q-max increased from 8.4 to 18.4 in group I and 8.4 to 16.6 in group II, the IPSS decreased from 19 to 5.8 in group I and from 19 to 6.3 in group II and PVR decreased from 107 ml to 20 ml in Group I and from 109 ml to 21 ml in Group II (all differences statistically significant).
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address:
[email protected] (K. Mohy El Den).
Peer review under responsibility of Pan African Urological Surgeons’ Association.
1110-5704 © 2012 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Pan African Urological Surgeons’ Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afju.2012.04.007
30
O. Abd-El Kader et al. Comparing groups I and II there were statistically significant differences with regard to mean operative time (60.0 versus 20.6 min), duration of catheterization (3.2 versus 2.2 days), hospital stay (3.7 versus 2.6 days), and the incidence of postoperative retrograde ejaculation (52.5% versus 22.5%) and erectile dysfunction (20% versus 7.5%). Conclusion: TUIP and TURP for small prostatic adenoma of less than 30 g are equally effective in providing symptomatic improvement. TUIP is more advantageous with to side-effects, operative time, hospital stay and the duration of catheterization. © 2012 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Pan African Urological Surgeons’ Association.
Introduction Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a chronic progressive disorder. One third of men older than 60 years will develop obstructive symptoms due to BPH, and approximately 25% of them will eventually require surgical intervention [1]. The aim of treating BPH is to improve bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and associated quality of life, and to prevent or decrease complications. Treatment options range from self-monitoring for mild symptoms, to drugs or even surgical intervention for moderate to severe symptoms [2]. Despite many recent innovations, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the benchmark therapy for BPH and it is still considered the reference standard of surgical treatment [3]. TURP is not without problems: 13% of patients need blood transfusion, 80% have retrograde ejaculation, and 15% complain of erectile dysfunction (ED). When looking at longer follow-up, 10% of patients will need a repeat procedure within 5 years and up to 5% will develop bladder neck stenosis or urethral stricture [4]. Transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) is a simpler, more costeffective and less invasive procedure than TURP. It is recommended for patients in whom preservation of erectile function and antegrade ejaculation are important [4]. It has been suggested that at least half of the patients who undergo TURP could be treated effectively with TUIP, avoiding the complication of TURP [1,4]. Despite the encouraging results of TUIP, concerns remain regarding the duration of its efficacy, prostate size limitations and the re-operation rate [5]. TUIP is considered an under-utilized procedure in England – only 2500 of these cases are performed annually, compared to 25,000 TURPs [2]. The aim of this study was to evaluate TURP versus TUIP after longterm follow-up in men with small prostatic adenoma ≤ 30 g, with regard to efficacy, cost-effectiveness, adverse effects and reoperation rate. Patients and methods Between January 2005 and December 2010, 86 men were selected from a large number of patients presenting to our urology departments with LUTS. The inclusion criteria were as follows: being on the waiting list for surgical treatment of BPH, total prostatic weight ≤ 30 g as measured with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and the ability to give informed consent. The exclusion criteria were: suspected prostate cancer (abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE), or elevated prostate specific antigen – PSA), bladder pathology (including mass, stones or chronic cystitis), prominent median lobe of the prostate or inability to comply with the follow-up schedule.
All patients were assessed for surgical and anesthetic fitness by clinical and laboratory evaluation. This included urine analysis, renal function tests, coagulation profile, liver enzymes, full blood count, PSA, chest X-ray and electrocardiogram. The international prostate symptom score (IPSS) [6] was documented and uroflowmetry (voided volume, maximum flow rate, average flow rate) was performed. The post-void residual urine volume (PVR) was calculated using ultrasound and confirmed by small caliber Nelaton catheter. Diagnostic cystoscopy was performed under spinal anesthesia prior to surgical intervention: TURP in group I patients and TUIP in group II. TURP was performed according to the standard technique using a 26F resectoscope and resecting the adenoma from the bladder neck to the verumontanum up to the level of the prostatic capsule. TUIP was performed by making bilateral incisions extending from the ureteric orifice to the verumontanum up to the level of the perivesical fat. A Collin’s knife was used. After obtaining hemostasis, a 20F three-way transurethral catheter was inserted and continuous bladder irrigation started [5]. The following data were collected on all patients: operative time, perioperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and catheterization time. Follow-up visits were scheduled for every 6 months. At 48 months follow-up IPSS and uroflowmetry (voided volume, maximum flow rate, average flow rate, and PVR) were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using the paired samples test and Chi-square test with cross-tabulation for connected and unconnected variables.
Results Of the 86 patients enrolled, 80 completed the study: 40 patients in each group. The mean weight of the prostate was 27.6 ± 2.4 g for TURP (group I) and 28.2 ± 2.1 g for TUIP (group II) measured by TRUS. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to age, pre-operative IPSS, uroflowmetry parameters and prostate weight (Table 1). When intraoperative and immediate postoperative variables were compared, statistically significant differences were found with regard to operative time, blood transfusion rate, duration of catheterization and length of hospital stay in favor of the TUIP group II (Table 2). Long-term follow-up at 48 months revealed significant improvements in both groups (Table 3).
TURP versus TUIP long term follow up Table 1
31
Preoperative variables.
Parameter
Group
Min
Max
Mean ± SD
Age (years)
TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP
54 53 15 16 136 141 2.5 2.6 7.5 7.5 79 81
71 72 26 25 186 185 5.3 5.2 9.9 9.5 131 131
63.6 66.2 19 19 161.6 161.2 4.05 3.8 8.4 8.4 107.5 109.4
IPSS Voided volume (ml) Average flow rate (ml/s) Maximum flow rate (ml/s) Post-void residual volume (ml)
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
4.2 6.1 2 2 12.1 11.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 18.4 18.1
p-Value 0.288 0.814 0.921 0.303 0.584 0.797
IPSS, international prostate symptoms score.
Table 2
Intraoperative and immediate postoperative variables.
Operative time (min) Blood transfusion – N (%) Duration of catheterization (days) Length of hospital stay (days)
Table 3
TURP
TUIP
p-Value
60.0 (±6.1) 2 (5%) 3.2 (±0.3) 3.7 (±0.3)
20.6 (±3.1) 0 (0%) 2.2 (±0.3) 2.6 (±0.3)
0.000 0.163 0.000 0.000
At 48 months (mean ± SD)
p-Value
Long-term follow-up (48 months).
Parameter
Group
Pre-operative (mean ± SD)
IPSS
TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP
19 19 161.6 161.2 4.1 3.8 8.4 8.4 107.5 109.4
Voided volume (ml) Average flow rate (ml/s) Maximum flow rate (ml/s) Post void residual volume
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
2 2 12.1 11.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 18.4 18.1
At 48 months follow-up there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in IPSS and maximum flow rate, in favor of the TURP group I (Table 4). Complication and reoperation rates at 48 months follow-up are shown in Table 5. Retrograde ejaculation and ED were significantly less common in the TUIP compared with the TURP group.
Table 4
5.8 6.3 356.1 341.4 7.5 7.1 18.4 16.6 20.6 21.7
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
1.1 1.2 36.5 36.2 1 0.8 1 0.8 5.3 5.3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Re-operation was required in 4 patients who complained of severe obstructive voiding symptoms. Two patients in the TURP group developed bladder neck contracture and were subsequently treated with TUIP. Two patients in the TUIP group had obstructive prostate adenoma tissue and were treated with TURP. Urethral stricture occurred in one patient in each group and was managed with visual internal urethrotomy.
Comparison between TURP and TUIP at 48 months.
Parameter
Group
Mean (±SD)
p-Value
IPSS
TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP TURP TUIP
5.8 ± 1.1 6.3 ± 1.2 356.1 (±36.5) 341.4 (±36.2) 7.5 ± 1 7.1 ± 0.8 18.4 ± 1 16.6 ± 0.8 20.6 (±5.3) 21.7 (±5.3)
0.025
Voided volume (ml) Average flow rate (ml/s) Maximum flow rate (ml/s) Post void residual volume (ml)
0.226 0.079 0.000 0.507
32 Table 5
O. Abd-El Kader et al. Complications at 48 months follow-up (values are shown as number and percentage). TURP
Retrograde ejaculation Erectile dysfunction Bladder neck contracture Prostatic adenoma obstruction Urethral stricture (n %) Reoperation • Visual internal urethrotomy • TURP • TUIP
TUIP
21 (52.5%) 8 (20%) 2 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.5%) 3 (7.5%) 1 (2.5%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%)
Discussion TURP has for many years been the most common method of removing obstructive prostatic adenoma through the urethra [7]. Instruments have undergone major technological improvements, resulting in decreased morbidity and mortality. However, TURP is still a potentially dangerous intervention, especially in the hands of the inexperienced endoscopist [8]. In this study, TUIP was effective in improving IPSS scores and uroflow parameters, as was TURP. This is in accordance with the findings by Yang et al. [1] in their review which included nine trials comparing the effectivity of TUIP versus TURP in prostates less than 30 g. Our results were comparable to those in many published series with regard to the degree of improvement in symptom score and uroflow parameters [5,9–11]. Patient satisfaction in the TUIP group was similar to that of the TURP group. There were statistically significant differences in IPSS and maximum flow rate between the 2 groups at 48 months follow-up, with the TURP group doing better than the TUIP group. Other authors reported similar results [5,7,12,13]. In our study, as in other studies, TUIP was associated with reduced operative time, less need for blood transfusion, shorter hospital stay, decreased period of catheterization and a lower incidence of retrograde ejaculation [5,9,10,14]. Tkocz and Prajsner [15] concluded that TUIP, which is a simple procedure with low morbidity, could replace TURP for patients with prostates less than 30 g. Similarly Lourenco and co-workers in a recent systematic review found that TUIP gave improvements similar to TURP, but with a lower incidence of adverse events [2]. In our study, the reoperation rate of 7.5% in both groups was different from that reported in the meta-analysis done by Lourenco and associates, who found that reoperation after TUIP was required more frequently than after TURP: 18.4% versus 7.2% [2]. This may be due to differences in the follow-up period and the small number of patients in our study. The follow-up period in our study was 48 months, which is longer than in the studies of Yang et al. [1] (3–12 months) and Riehmann et al. [7] (36 months). Similar to our data, reoperation was mostly performed within the first 24 months postoperatively.
9 (22.5%) 3 (7.5%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 1 (2.5%) 3 (7.5%) 1 (2.5%) 2 (5%) 0 (0%)
p-Value 0.000 0.036 0.160 0.160 1.000 1.00 1.00 0.160 0.160
Lee and associates [16] extensively studied bladder neck contracture in their series: at follow-up of more than 36 months 9.7% of patients had bladder neck contracture after TUIP compared to 12.3% of patients after TURP. This rate was reduced to 6% when TURP was accompanied by TUIP. Other studies [14,17,18] concluded that bladder neck contracture occurred in approximately 8% of patients after resection of less than 20 g of prostatic tissue, and seldom after TUIP. In our study, the reoperation rate for obstruction was equal in both groups (7.5%), which is similar to the other studies [16–18]. Some authors [19–21] did not report a significant reoperation rate after TUIP. The underlying pathology of obstruction in our geographical area is often related to schistosomiasis and fibrosis of the prostate. This may explain the similar rate of recurrence of obstruction after TUIP compared with TURP. TUIP is preferable in many of these patients who are young and wish to father more children. Conclusion In our study, TUIP and TURP were equally effective in providing symptomatic improvement in prostates less than 30 g. TUIP was associated with fewer adverse events, required less operative time, shorter hospital stay and a shorter catheterization period. References [1] Yang Q, Peters TJ, Donovan JL, Wilt TJ, Abrams P. Transurethral incision compared with transurethral resection of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Urology 2001;165(5 I):1526–32. [2] Lourenco T, Shaw M, Fraser C, MacLennan G, N’Dow J, Pickard R. The clinical effectiveness of transurethral incision of the prostate: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. World Journal of Urology 2010;28(1):23–32. [3] Golam Robbani ABM, Salam MA, Anowarul Islam AKM. Transurethral resection (TURP) versus transurethral incision (TUIP) of the prostate for small sized benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective randomized study. Transactional Analysis Journal 2006;19(2.):50–6. [4] Yang Q, Abrams P, Donovan J, Mulligan S, Williams G. Transurethral resection or incision of the prostate and other therapies: a survey of treatments for benign prostatic obstruction in the UK. British Journal of Urology International 1999;84(6):640–5. [5] Jahnson S, Dalén M, Gustavsson G, Pedersen J. Transurethral incision versus resection of the prostate for small to medium benign prostatic hyperplasia. British Journal of Urology 1998;81(2):276–81.
TURP versus TUIP long term follow up [6] Barry MJ, Fowler Jr FJ, O’Leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Urology 1992;148(5 I):1549–57. [7] Riehmann M, Knes JM, Heisey D, Madsen PO, Bruskewitz RC. Transurethral resection versus incision of the prostate: a randomized, prospective study. Urology 1995;45(5):768–75. [8] Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett ATK, Peters PC. Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3885 patients. Journal of Urology 1989;141(2):243–7. [9] Sadeq SZ, Zeyada A, Mursi K, Ehsan A, Wagih M. Transurethral incision compared with transurethral resection of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction caused by small benign prostatic hyperplasia. Egyptian Journal of Urology 2005;12(3):146–51. [10] Larsen EH, Dorflinger T, Gasser TC, Graversen PH, Bruskewitz RC. Transurethral incision versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy. A preliminary report. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology Supplements 1987;104:83–6. [11] Fitzpatrick JM. Minimally invasive and endoscopic management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA, editors. Campbell–Walsh urology. 9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2007. p. 2803–44. [12] Li MK, Ng ASM. Bladder neck resection and transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Journal of Urology 1987;138(4):807–9.
33 [13] Dorflinger T, Jensen FS, Krarup T, Walter S. Transurethral prostatectomy compared with incision of the prostate in the treatment of prostatism caused by small benign prostate glands. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology 1992;26(4):333–8. [14] Lourenco T, Armstrong N, N’Dow J, Nabi G, Deverill M, Pickard R, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of effectiveness and cost utility of surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement. Health Technology Assessment 2008;12(35.):169–515. [15] Tkocz M, Prajsner A. Comparison of long-term results of transurethral incision of the prostate with transurethral resection of the prostate, in patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2002;21(2):112–6. [16] Lee YH, Chiu AW, Huang JK. Comprehensive study of bladder neck contracture after transurethral resection of prostate. Urology 2005;65(3):498–503. [17] Orandi A. Transurethral resection versus transurethral incision of the prostate. Urologic Clinics of North America 1990;17:601–12. [18] Mebust WK. Transurethral incision of resection of the prostate. Journal of Urology 1987;138(4):852. [19] Orandi A. Transurethral incision of prostate compared with transurethral resection of prostate in 132 matching cases. Journal of Urology 1987;138(4):810–5. [20] Edwards LE, Bucknall TE, Pittam MR. Transurethral resection of the prostate and bladder neck incision: a review of 700 cases. British Journal of Urology 1985;57(2):168–71. [21] Soonawalla PF, Pardanani DS. Transurethral incision versus transurethral resection of the prostate. A subjective and objective analysis. British Journal of Urology 1992;70(2):174–7.
