Purpose:This study compared the suprapubic (SP) versus retropubic (RP) prostatectomy for the treatment of large prostates and evaluated perioperative surgical morbidity and improvement of urinary symptoms.Materials and Methods:In this single centre, prospective, randomised study, 65 consecutive patients with LUTS and surgical indication with prostate volume greater than 75g underwent open prostatectomy to compare the RP (32 patients) versus SP (33 patients) technique. Results: The SP group exhibited a higher incidence of complications (p=0.002). Regarding voiding pattern analysis (IPSS and flowmetry), both were significantly effective compared to pre-treatment baseline. The RP group parameters were significantly better, with higher peak urinary flow (SP: 16.77 versus RP: 23.03mL/s, p=0.008) and a trend of lower IPSS score (SP: 6.67 versus RP 4.14, p=0.06). In a subgroup evaluation of patients with prostate volumes larger than 100g, blood loss was lower in those undergoing SP prostatectomy (p=0.003). Patients with prostates smaller than 100g in the SP group exhibited a higher incidence of low grade late complications (p=0.004).Conclusions:The SP technique was related to a higher incidence of minor complications in the late postoperative period. High volume prostates were associated with increased bleeding when the RP technique was utilized. The RP prostatectomy was associated with higher peak urinary flow and a trend of a lower IPSS Score.
Giant prostatic hyperplasia is a rare condition characterized by very high volume benign prostatic enlargement (>500g). Few cases have been reported so far and most of them are associated with severe lower urinary symptoms. We report the first case of asymptomatic giant prostatic hyperplasia in an elderly man who had a 720g prostate adenoma, sudden gross hematuria and hypovolemic shock. The patient was successfully treated with open transvesical prostatectomy and had an uneventful postoperative recovery.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the surgical morbidity and effectiveness in improving symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), comparing 'button-type' bipolar plasma vaporisation (BTPV) vs transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).
MethodsWe conducted a literature search of published articles until November 2014. Only prospective and randomised studies with comparative data between BTPV and conventional TURP (mono-or bipolar) were included in this review.
ResultsSix articles were selected for the analyses. In the 871 patients evaluated, 522 underwent TURP and 349 BTPV. There was a tendency for a higher transfusion rate in the TURP group, with two BTPV cases (0.006%) and 16 TURP cases (0.032%) requiring transfusions (P = 0.06). The number of complications was similar between the groups (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-1.31; P = 0.12; I 2 = 86%). When subdivided by severity, 10.7% (14/131) and 14.6% (52/355) of complications were classified as severe (Clavien 3 or 4) in patients who underwent BTPV and TURP, respectively (P = 0.02). The average duration of indwelling catheterisation was significantly less in patients who underwent BTPV (standardised mean difference [SMD] À0.84; 95% CI À1.54 to 0.14; P = 0.02; I 2 = 81%). Both treatments significantly improved symptoms and the postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score was similar in both groups (SMD 0.09, 95% CI À1.56 to 1.73; P = 0.92).
ConclusionBTPV is an effective and safe treatment for BPH. The improvement of urinary symptoms and overall complications are comparable to conventional TURP. However, BTVP appears to be associated with a lower rate of major complications and duration of indwelling catheterisation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.