Keywords
TURP
TUIP
Small Prostate
Randomized Controlled Trial
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
How to Cite
Abstract
Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common cause of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in elderly men. While TURP remains the standard surgical option, TUIP has emerged as an alternative, especially for prostates under 30 grams.
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of TURP versus TUIP in men with prostate size <30 grams in terms of operative time, catheterization duration, hospital stay, urinary flow improvement, and perioperative complications.
Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Setting & Duration: This trial was conducted in the Department of Urology, DHQ Teaching Hospital, Sargodha, from 26th July 2024 to 25th January 2025.
Patients & Methods: Fifty male patients aged 60–80 years with symptomatic BPH and prostate size <30 grams were randomized to either TURP (n=25) or TUIP (n=25). Operative time, catheterization duration, hospital stay, and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) were compared. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27. Independent t-tests were used for continuous variables and Chi-square test for categorical variables.
Results: TUIP was associated with significantly shorter operative time (19.8 ± 3.6 min vs. 76.36 ± 33.43 min; p<0.05), shorter hospital stay (2.08 ± 1.51 days vs. 4.08 ± 1.41 days; p<0.05), and shorter catheterization duration (2.4 ± 1.3 days vs. 3.84 ± 2.01 days; p<0.05). TUIP also resulted in greater improvement in Qmax (19.8 ± 2.5 ml/s vs. 17.16 ± 1.37 ml/s; p<0.05). Perioperative complication rates were comparable.
Conclusion: TUIP is an effective alternative to TURP for small prostates, with shorter operative time, faster recovery, and comparable symptom relief. Larger multicenter studies with longer follow-up are recommended.