PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised all patients admitted for transurethral resection of the prostate and categorised into two groups, i.e. those presenting in AUR or electively. The factors evaluated included the length of hospitalization, the patients' occupation, their duration of symptoms and reasons for not seeking treatment.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean age and occupational status of the two groups but those in AUR had more complications and a longer hospital stay after surgery; 60% of these men had had their urinary symptoms for > 1 year. When asked why they did not seek treatment earlier, 35% reported fear of surgery, while 41% thought that their symptoms were a normal part of ageing.
CONCLUSION: There is a need to raise the level of public awareness of benign prostatic enlargement because those who present with AUR incur excess morbidity and longer hospitalization that could otherwise be avoided through earlier treatment and elective surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an age-matched case-control study of US occurrence after PK-TURP. Retrospective data were collected from the hospital records of patients who had a minimum of 36 months of follow-up information. Among the data collected for analysis were prostate-specific antigen level, estimated prostate weight, the amount of prostate resected, operative time, history of urinary tract infection, previous transurethral resection of the prostate, and whether the PK-TURP was combined with other endourological procedures. The resection rate was calculated from the collected data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify clinical and surgical risk factors related to US formation.
RESULTS: A total of 373 patients underwent PK-TURP between 2003 and 2009. There were 13 cases of US (3.5%), and most of them (10 of 13, 76.9%) presented within 24 months of surgery. Most of the US cases (11 of 13, 84.6%) occurred at the bulbar urethra. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified slow resection rate as the only risk factor significantly associated with US occurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: The US rate of 3.5% after PK-TURP in this study is comparable to contemporary series. A slow resection rate seems to be related to US occurrence. This should be confirmed by further studies; meanwhile, we must be mindful of this possibility when operating with the PK-TURP system.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a one-year period, we randomly assigned patients with an indication for surgery for BPH and who met inclusion criteria to treatment with either PKRP or TURP. We measured prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound, relief of bladder outlet obstruction, operative time, decline in serum sodium and hemoglobin, weight of resected prostatic chips, duration of catheterization and hospital stay. Patients were evaluated one month after discharge for obstructive symptoms. Complications were also recorded.
RESULTS: Of 102 patients enrolled, 51 underwent PKRP and 51 underwent TURP. Relief of obstructive symptoms and mean operative time showed no statistically significant difference. The PKRP group had a smaller decline in hemoglobin than the TURP group (0.6 g/dL vs 1.8 g/dL, P=.01), a lower reduction in serum sodium levels (1.03 mmol/L vs 5.01 mmol/L, P=.01), a shorter catheterization time (37.2 hours versus 57.7 hours, P=.03) and a shorter hospital stay (1.5 days versus 2.6 days, P=.02). One patient in the bipolar PKRP group needed recatheterization versus four patients in the TURP group.
CONCLUSION: PKRP reduces morbidity with an outcome similar to conventional monopolar TURP in the treatment of BPH.