Prostate resection weight matters in severely obstructed men undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.2.169
Accepted: May 27, 2022
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Objectives: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains one of the goldstandard surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia/lower urinary tract symptoms. The usefulness of a complete adenoma resection is questionable, with studies reporting no impact of the amount of resected tissue on surgical outcomes, irrespective of prostate volume. The aim of this study was to assess whether in less obstructed patients a less extensive TURP may be considered. Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis of 185 men undergoing TURP in one university hospital. Retrieved data included pre-operative prostate volume and Qmax, as well as resected prostate weight and post-operative Qmax. Patients were divided in two groups according to pre-operative Qmax < 10mL/s and ≥ 10 mL/s. Results: A correlation was found between absolute resected prostate weight and post-operative Qmax in the group of patients with pre-operative Qmax < 10 mL/s (r2 = 0.038, p = 0.032), independently of the pre-operative prostate volume. This association was neither observed in the group of patients with pre-operative Qmax ≥ 10 mL/s (r2 = -0.033, p = 0.796) nor in whole population analysis (r2 = 0.019, p = 0.064). Likewise, in the group of patients with pre-operative Qmax < 10 mL/s, the improvement in Qmax was correlated with absolute resected weight and percentage of prostate resected weight (r2 = 0.036, p = 0.037 and r2 = 0.040, p = 0.029, respectively). None of these correlations was found in the group of patients with pre-operative Qmax ≥ 10 mL/s (r2 = 0.009, p = 0.463 and r2 = -0.018, p = 0.294, respectively). Conclusions: Patients with pre-operative Qmax ≥ 10 mL/s may do well with less profound prostate resections, whereas patients with lower pre-operative Qmax seem to benefit from a complete adenoma resection.
Gravas S, Cornu JN, Gacci M, et al. Management of non-neurogenic male LUTS. In: EAU Guidelines. EAU Guidelines Office; 2020.
Parsons JK, Dahm P, Köhler TS, et al. Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA Guideline Amendment 2020. J Urol. 2020; 204:799-804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001298
Walker KM. Per-urethral operations for prostatic obstruction. Br Med J. 1925; 1:201-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.3344.201
Milonas D, Verikaite J, Jievaltas M. The effect of complete transurethral resection of the prostate on symptoms, quality of life, and voiding function improvement. Cent Eur J Urol. 2015; 68:169-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2015.507
Park HK, Paick SH, Lho YS, et al. Effect of the ratio of resected tissue in comparison with the prostate transitional zone volume on voiding function improvement after transurethral resection of prostate. Urology. 2012; 79:202-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.07.1397
Hakenberg OW, Helke C, Manseck A, Wirth MP. Is there a relationship between the amount of tissue removed at transurethral resection of the prostate and clinical improvement in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol. 2001; 39:412-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000052478
Siroky MB, Olsson CA, Krane RJ. The flow rate nomogram: II. Clinical correlation. J Urol. 1980; 123:208-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)55859-0
Drake MJ, Lewis AL, Young GJ, et al. Diagnostic assessment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men considering prostate surgery: a noninferiority randomised controlled trial of urodynamics in 26 hospitals. Eur Urol. 2020; 78:701-710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.004
Chung A, Woo HH. Preservation of sexual function when relieving benign prostatic obstruction surgically: Can a trade-off be considered? Curr Opin Urol. 2016; 26:42-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000247
Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)-Incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006; 50:969-980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.042
Alloussi SH, Lang C, Eichel R, Alloussi S. Ejaculation-preserving transurethral resection of prostate and bladder neck: Short- and longterm results of a new innovative resection technique. J Endourol. 2014; 28:84-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0093
Ben Rhouma S, Ben Chehida MA, Ahmed S, et al. MP42-18 Can we preserve ejaculation after transurethral resection of the prostate ? Comparative study between the conventional technique and a new technique about 70 cases. J Urol. 2016; 195:e577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.206
Leonardi R. The LEST technique: Treatment of prostatic obstruction preserving antegrade ejaculation in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Arch Ital di Urol Androl. 2019; 91:35-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2019.1.35
S Sun F, Sun X, Shi Q, Zhai Y. Transurethral procedures in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and complications. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97:e13360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013360
Siroky MB, Olsson CA, Krane RJ. The flow rate nomogram: I. Development. J Urol. 1979; 122:665-668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)56550-7
Huang SW, Tsai CY, Tseng CS, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of new surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019; 367:l5919. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5919
Mourmouris P, Tzelves L, Feretzakis G, et al. The use and applicability of machine learning algorithms in predicting the surgical outcome for patients with benign prostatic enlargement. Which model to use? Arch Ital di Urol e Androl. 2021; 93:418-424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.4.418
Itoh H, Kojima M, Okihara K, et al. Significant relationship of time-dependent uroflowmetric parameters to lower urinary tract symptoms as measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score. Int J Urol. 2006; 13:1058-1065. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01496.x
Drake MJ, Doumouchtsis SK, Hashim H, Gammie A. Fundamentals of urodynamic practice, based on International Continence Society good urodynamic practices recommendations. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018; 37:S50-S60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23773
Schäfer W. Analysis of bladder-outlet function with the linearized passive urethral resistance relation, linPURR, and a disease-specific approach for grading obstruction: from complex to simple. World J Urol. 1995; 13:47-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182666
D’Ancona C, Haylen B, Oelke M, et al. The International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for adult male lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms and dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019; 38:433-477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23897
Boci R, Fall M, Waldén M, et al. Home uroflowmetry: Improved accuracy in outflow assessment. Neurourol Urodyn. 1999; 18:25-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6777(1999)18:1<25::AID-NAU5>3.0.CO;2-O
Chan CK, Yip SKH, Wu IPH, et al. Evaluation of the clinical value of a simple flowmeter in the management of male lower urinary tract symptoms. BJU Int. 2012; 109:1690-1696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10581.x
Lukacs S, Vale J, Mazaris E. Difference between actual vs. pathology prostate weight in TURP and radical robotic-assisted prostatectomy specimen. Int Braz J Urol. 2014; 4:823-827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.06.14
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
