Volume 25, Issue 7 pp. 770-775
Original Clinical Article

TURP and low-energy TUMT treatment in men with LUTS suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction selected by means of pressure-flow studies: 8-year follow-up

Stepan Vesely

Corresponding Author

Stepan Vesely

Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden

Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Urology Department, Bruna Stråket 11, S-413 45 Göteborg, Sweden.Search for more papers by this author
Tomas Knutson

Tomas Knutson

Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author
Jan-Erik Damber

Jan-Erik Damber

Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author
Mauro Dicuio

Mauro Dicuio

Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author
Christer Dahlstrand

Christer Dahlstrand

Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 02 October 2006
Citations: 10

No conflict of interest reported by the author(s).

Abstract

Aims

To evaluate the long-term outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), when allocation to the treatment-group was based on urodynamic diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO).

Methods

A total of 231 elderly men with symptomatic BPH were treated either by TURP or by low-energy TUMT. A pressure-flow study was performed to detect the obstruction and to help in the selection of the two treatments. The patients were examined at baseline then checked again after 2 and 8 years.

Results

At 2 years of follow-up there was a significant improvement for both IPSS and QoL (P < 0.0001) in both groups of treatment. This was accompanied by a significant improvement (P < 0.0001) in the maximum flow rate from 10.0 (5.8) to 16.4 (7.6) in the TURP group and from 12.1 (5.2) to 14.9 (5.7) in the TUMT group. These findings persisted at 8 years, they were, however, more pronounced after TURP. The overall retreatment rate reached a value of 11% in the TURP group and 27% in the TUMT group, respectively. At the follow-up, 95% of the patients who underwent TURP and 70% of the patients treated by TUMT claimed to be satisfied with that choice.

Conclusions

With durable symptomatic improvement and lowest retreatment rate, TURP still presents a standard treatment option for patients with severe BOO. Low-energy TUMT has sufficiently relieved patients' symptoms and can be offered to less obstructed patients as an alternative. Neurourol. Urodynam. 25:770–775, 2006. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.