Comparative Outcomes of Open Prostatectomy and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Open Prostatectomy and Transurethral Resection for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v5i12.1991Keywords:
Prostatic Hyperplasia, Open Prostatectomy, Prostate Cancer, Surgical Outcomes, Urinary SymptomsAbstract
The urinary function and comfort are substantially impacted by Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH), common in aging men. Moderate to severe cases frequently necessitate surgical interventions. Both Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) and Open Prostatectomy (OP) are well-established surgical procedures. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, safety and patient outcomes of OP and TURP in the treatment of BPH. Methods: This quasi experimental study included 288 male patients diagnosed with BPH, allocated in the groups to undergo either OP (n=144) or TURP (n=144). The primary outcomes assessed were postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximal urinary flow rate (Qmax) and postvoid residual volume (PVR). Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, complication rates and reoperation rates were secondary outcomes. Results: IPSS (at 1 month and 6 months), Qmax (at 1 month and 6 months) and PVR (at 6 months) were significantly improved in TURP patients (P < 0.05). OP patients encountered longer operative times (P < 0.05) and higher intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.05). Although trends favored the TURP group, there were non-significant differences between the groups regarding complications viz urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Postoperatively, TURP also led to reduced analgesic needs and shortened hospital stays. Conclusion: TURP is the preferred treatment for most patients with BPH due to its faster recuperation, reduced complications and enhanced urinary function in comparison to OP. However, OP continues to be the valuable procedure for individuals with larger prostate volumes or specific clinical scenarios in which TURP may be insufficient.
References
Roehrborn CG. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: An Overview. Reviews in Urology. 2005; 7(9). doi: 10.1016/S1569-9056(04)90343-0.
Moin AM and Nagarjuna M. Exploring Sensitivity and Significance of Tamsulosin as Modified Release in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Saudi Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2024; 10(3): 179-183. doi: 10.36348/sjmps.2024.v10i03.007.
Lepor H. Pathophysiology of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in the Aging Male Population. Reviews in Urology. 2005; 7(7): 3.
Kant P, Inbaraj LR, Franklyn NN, Norman G. Prevalence, Risk Factors and Quality of Life of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) among Men Attending Primary Care Slum Clinics in Bangalore: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2021 Jun; 10(6): 2241-2245. doi: 0.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2316_20.
Miernik A and Gratzke C. Current Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Deutsches Arzteblatt International. 2020 Dec; 117(49): 843. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0843.
Elterman DS, Barkin J, Kaplan SA. Optimizing the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Therapeutic Advances in Urology. 2012 Apr; 4(2): 77-83. doi: 10.1177/1756287212437361.
Xia E, Valle RF, Huang X, Yu D, Liu Y, Lin B, et al. Complications of Hysteroscopic Surgery. Practical Manual of Hysteroscopy. 2022 Aug; 1: 365-420. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-1332-7_12.
Palaniappan S, Kuo TL, Cheng CW, Foo KT. Early Outcome of Transurethral Enucleation and Resection of the Prostate Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate. Singapore Medical Journal. 2016 Dec; 57(12): 676-680. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2016026.
Nimeh T, Magnan B, Almallah YZ. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Review of Modern Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatments. Seminars in Interventional Radiology. 2016 Sep; 33(3): 244-250. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1586148.
Fogaing C, Alsulihem A, Campeau L, Corcos J. Is Early Surgical Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Preferable to Prolonged Medical Therapy: Pros and Cons. Medicina. 2021 Apr; 57(4): 368. doi: 10.3390/medicina57040368.
Chen F, Chen Y, Zou Y, Wang Y, Wu X, Chen M. Comparison of Holmium Laser Enucleation and Transurethral Resection of Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of International Medical Research. 2023 Aug; 51(8). doi: 10.1177/03000605231190763.
Bharadwaj HR, Wireko AA, Adebusoye FT, Ferreira T, Pacheco‐Barrios N, Abdul‐Rahman T, et al. Challenges and Opportunities in Prostate Cancer Surgery in South America: Insights into Robot‐Assisted Radical Prostatectomies—A Perspective. Health Science Reports. 2023 Aug; 6(8): 1519. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.1519.
Liu S and Hemal A. Techniques of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for the Management of Prostate Cancer: Which One, When and Why. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2020 Apr; 9(2): 906. doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.09.13.
Mian AH, Tollefson MK, Shah P, Sharma V, Mian A, Thompson RH, et al. Navigating Now and Next: Recent Advances and Future Horizons in Robotic Radical Prostatectomy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(2): 359. doi: 10.3390/jcm13020359.
Sofimajidpour H, Khoshyar A, Zareie B, Sofimajidpour H, Rasouli MA. Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Transvesical Open Prostatectomy Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia with a Prostate Weight of 65-40 Gram. Urology journal. 2020 Nov; 18(03): 289-294.
Eraky AM, Rubenstein SC, Khan A, Mokhtar Y, Gregorich NM. Non-Surgical Bleeding and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) Syndrome after TURP Surgery: A Case Report and Literature Review. Pathophysiology. 2024 Jul; 31(3): 367-375. doi: 10.3390/pathophysiology31030027.
Fogaing C, Alsulihem A, Campeau L, Corcos J. Is Early Surgical Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Preferable to Prolonged Medical Therapy: Pros and Cons. Medicina. 2021 Apr; 57(4): 368. doi: 10.3390/medicina57040368.
Kaltsas A, Kratiras Z, Zachariou A, Dimitriadis F, Sofikitis N, Chrisofos M. Evaluating the Impact of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Surgical Treatments on Sexual Health. Biomedicines. 2024 Jan; 12(1): 110. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines12010110.
Christidis D, McGrath S, Perera M, Manning T, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk N. Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies for Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy: The Rise in Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies. Prostate International. 2017 Jun; 5(2): 41-46. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2017.01.007.
Lin YH, Hou CP, Chen TH, Juang HH, Chang PL, Yang PS, et al. Transurethral Resection of the Prostate Provides More Favorable Clinical Outcomes Compared with Conservative Medical Treatment in Patients with Urinary Retention Caused by Benign Prostatic Obstruction. BMC geriatrics. 2018 Dec; 18: 1-7. doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0709-3.
Zeng XT, Jin YH, Liu TZ, Chen FM, Ding DG, Fu M, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for Transurethral Plasmakinetic Resection of Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Military Medical Research. 2022 Apr; 9(1): 14.
Beilstein CM, Huber M, Furrer MA, Löffel LM, Wuethrich PY, Engel D. Impact of Analgesic Techniques on Early Quality of Recovery after Prostatectomy: A 3‐Arm, Randomized Trial. European Journal of Pain. 2022 Oct; 26(9): 1990-2002. doi: 10.1002/ejp.2020.
Franco JV, Tesolin P, Jung JH. Update on the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and the Role of Minimally Invasive Procedures. Prostate International. 2023 Mar; 11(1): 1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2023.01.002.
Ng M, Leslie SW, Baradhi KM. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. StatPearls. 2024 Jan; 1.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Pakistan Journal of Health Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access journal and all the published articles / items are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For comments
