Comparative evaluation of different modalities of treatment in benign prostatic hyperplasia at tertiary care teaching institute

Jayesh B. Gohel; Kalpesh H. Patel

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20164452

Authors

Jayesh B. Gohel Department of Surgery, GMERS Medical College, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
Kalpesh H. Patel Department of Surgery, GMERS Medical College, Dharpur-Patan, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20164452

Keywords:

Benign prostatic hypertrophy, Freyer’s prostatectomy, Medical Management of BPH, TURP

Abstract

Background:Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the most common disease occurring in men as the age advances. There are various treatment modalities available, amongst which trans-urethral resection of prostate (TURP) is widely used but role of open Freyer's prostatectomy and medical management can't be ignored at the same time. This study was done to compare different modalities of treatment, to evaluate the individual modality in view of its efficacy, complications and patient satisfaction, to compare the different modalities in their efficacy for management of BPH and their complication profile, to suggest the best form of therapy that can be offered to patients.

Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted including 90 patients having benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were enrolled for the study and randomly divided into three groups of 30 patients each. Group I consists of patients undergoing for Freyer's prostatectomy, Group II consists of patients undergoing TURP and in Group III patients were managed conservatively with medical management.

Results:Temporary Incontinence of urine was the most common complication occurred found in 6 cases (20%) in Freyer’s prostatectomy group I and in 3 cases (10%) in TURP group II; per-urethral catheter was removed between 2-5 days in all 30 cases (100%) of TURP, but in Freyer’s prostatectomy it was kept up to average 10 days (8-18); All 30 cases (100%) of in Group II where TURP done were discharged within 6 days of surgery whereas in Group I where Freyer's prostatectomy done, most of the cases 21 (70%) were discharged between 11-15 days post-operatively. In Group III, patients were managed by medical management patients, 11 cases (36.67%) presented with acute urinary retention (AUR) and 19 (63.33%) patients presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) without retention.

Conclusions:TURP is having definite advantage over Freyer's prostatectomy, because Length of hospitalization, postoperative complications are less frequent. Transurethral resection is the method of choice in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia especially in patients with mild to moderate prostatic enlargement and in the elderly patients with co-existing medical disease. Endoscopic instruments, training and more experience is required for TURP. Medical management can delay immediate surgery but later on surgical management is usually required.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Brodie SB. Lectures on the diseases of the urinary organs. 2nd edition. London, Longman Press; 1835:141-60.

Presti JC. Neoplasms of the prostate gland. In: Tanagho EA, McAmich JW. Smiths General Urology. New York: McGraw - Hill 15th Edition. 2000:399-422.

Rosette J, Alivizatos G, Madersbacher S. Guidelines on benign prostatic hyperplasia. european urology association. 2009:35.

Jepsen JV, Bruskewitz RC. Recent developments in the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 1998;51:23-31.

Reich O, Gratzke C, Stief CG. Techniques and long term results of surgical procedures for BPH. Eur Urol. 2006;49:970-8.

Ahlstrand C, Carlsson P, Jonsson B. An estimate of the life-time cost of surgical treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia in Sweden. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1996;30:37-43.

Lukacs B. Management of symptomatic BPH in France: who is treated and how? Eur Urol. 1999;36(3):14-20.

Serretta V, Morgia G, Fondacaro L. Open prostatectomy for benign prostatic enlargement in southern Europe in the late 1990s: a contemporary series of 1800 interventions. Urology. 2002;60:623-7.

Mozes B, Cohen YC, Olmer L, Shabtai E. Factors affecting change in quality of life after prostatectomy for benign prostatic hypertrophy: the impact of surgical techniques. J Urol. 1996;155:191-6.

Ibrahim AIA, Malik E, Ghali AM, Murad N, Saad M. Effect of age, comorbidity and type of surgery on perioperative complications and mortality of prostatectomy. Brit J Urol. 1995;76:341-5.

Rosette JJMCH, Alivizatos G, Madersbacher S. EAU guidelines on benign prostatic hyperplasia. European Urology. 2001;40:256-63.

Isaacs JT, Coffey DS. Etiology and disease process of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate. 1989;15:33-50.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The Management of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS). London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2012.

Lourenco T, Pickard R, Vale L. Minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic enlargement: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2008;337:966-9.

Roehrborn CG. The effects of combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin on clinical outcomes in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from the combat study. European Urology. 2009;57(1):123-31.

Guess HA, Arrighi HM. The cumulative prevalence of prostatism matches the autopsy prevalence of BPH. Prostate 1990;17(3):241-6.

Glyn R, Campion EW, Bonchord GR. The development of BPH among volunteers in the normative aging study. Epid. 1985;121:781-5.

Pinnock VB, Marshall VR. Transurethral resection versus transvesical approach for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Journal Australia. 1997;167:62-5.

Kuntz RM. Laser treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol. 2007;25:241-7.

Simforoosh N, Abdi H, Kashi AH, Zare S, Tabibi S. Open prostatectomy versus transurethral resection of the prostate, where are we standing in the new era? Urology Journal. 2010;7(4):262-9.

Joeb R. Benign enlargement of prostate a comparative study between TURP and freyers. Gujarat University. 1987.

Nanninga, Connor V. Surgery of enlarged prostate gland. Urology. 1986;632-39.

Melchier, Valk W, Foret. Analysis of 7 years of 2223 consecutive cases of prostatectomy. Urol 1974;112;634-42.

Singh M, Tassider GC, Blandy JP. The evaluation of transurethral resection for benign enlargement of the prostate. British J Urol. 1973;45:93-102.

Bapat RD, Relekar RG, Pandit SR, Dandekar NP. Comparative study between modified Freyer’s prostatectomy, classical Freyer’s prostatectomy and Millin’s prostatectomy. J Postgrad Med. 1991;37:144-7.

Borboroglu PG, Kane CJ, Ward JF. Immediate and postoperative complications of transurethral resection of the prostate in the 1990s. J Urol. 1999;162;1307-10.

Taylor Z, Krakauer H. Mortality and re-operation following prostatectomy: outcomes in a medicare population. J Urol. 1991;38(1);27-31.

Hill AG, Njoroge P. Suprapubic transvesical prostatectomy in a rural Kenyan hospital. East Afr Med J. 2002;79:65-7.