Objective: To assess in a prospective trial the influence of the amount of tissue resected at transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic enlargement on the symptom improvement as assessed by symptom scores. Methods: Between December 1996 and August 1998 a total of 138 men (mean age 68.2, range 53–89) with symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement who underwent TURP participated in this prospective study. Patients were assessed preoperatively with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the American Urological Association Bother Score (AUA–BS) and the Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPH–II) as well as urinary flow rate measurements (Qmax) and prostate volume (PV) and residual urine determination by ultrasound. The amount of tissue resected was weighed. Patients were followed with reevaluation of Qmax, residual urine and the symptom and bother scores at 3 and 6 months. Results: A close correlation between preoperative PV (mean 49.0 ml, SD 22.0, range 13–140) and the resected tissue weight (RTW, mean 24.7 g, SD 18.0, range 6–128) was seen (r = 0.75, p<0.001). Age was correlated with preoperative PV (r = 0.23, p<0.05). While significant mean improvements in Qmax, residual volume and IPSS, AUA–BS and BPH–II were found 3 and 6 months postoperatively, a negative correlation was seen between the RTW and the IPSS, the AUA–BS and the BPH–II 3 months after TURP (r = –0.23, p<0.024; r = –0.23, p<0.025; r = –0.20, p = 0.05). No statistically significant correlation was seen between symptom change and the percentage of PV removed or the residual prostatic weight. Classification of the patients into groups depending on preoperative PV (<30, 31–50, 51–70 and >70 ml) showed a tendency for patients with larger PV to gain more symptom improvement postoperatively. Conclusions: Early symptom improvement after TURP will depend on the amount of tissue removed but the relationship is weak and affected by several other confounding factors. Apparently, the symptomatic improvement after TURP is not primarily dependent on the relative completeness of the resection. Patients with larger prostates and larger RTW tend to gain more symptomatic benefit from TURP than do patients with smaller prostates.

Keywords:
Benign Prostatic hyperplasia, Benign prostatic enlargement, Transurethral prostatectomy, Prostate, Clinical outcome, Symptom scores, Organ weight
1.
Emberton M, Neal DE, Black N, Harrison M, Fordham M, McBrien MP, Williams RE, McPherson K, Devlin HB: The National Prostatectomy Audit: The Clinical management of patients during hospital admission. Br J Urol 1995;75:301–316.
2.
Speakman MJ: Who should be treated and how? Evidence–based medicine in symptomatic BPH. Eur Urol 1999;36(suppl 3):40–51.
3.
Berges RR, Pientka L: Management of the BPH syndrome in Germany: Who is treated and how? Eur Urol 1999;36(suppl 3):21–27.
4.
Aagaard J, Jonler M, Fuglsig S, Christensen LL, Jorgensen HS, Norgaard JP: Total transurethral resection versus minimal transurethral resection of the prostate – A 10–year follow–up study of urinary symptoms, uroflowmetry and residual volume. Br J Urol, 1994;74:333–336.
5.
Jung P, Mattelaer P, Wolff, J, Merdorf A, Jakse G: Visual laser ablation of the prostate: Efficacy evaluated by urodynamics and compared to TURP. Eur Urol 1996;30:418–423.
6.
Muschter R, Whitfield H: Interstitial laser therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol 1999;35:147–154.
7.
Nesbit RM: Transurethral prostatic resection: in Campbell L, Harrison J (eds): Urology. Philadelphia, Sounders, 1970, p 2479.
8.
Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O’Leary M, Bruskewitz RJ, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, Cockett AT: The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol 1992;148: 1549–1555.
9.
Hakenberg OW, Pinnock CB, Marshall VR: Does evaluation with the International Prostate Symptom Score predict the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate? J Urol 1997;158:94–99.
10.
Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O’Leary MP: Measuring disease–specific health status in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Care 1995;33: 145–155.
11.
Matthews GJ, Motta J, Fracehia JA: The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimation: Clinical correlations. J Clin Ultrasound 1996;24:501–505.
12.
Roehrborn CG: Accurate determination of prostate size via digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound. Urology 1998;51:(suppl 4A):19–22.
13.
Doll H, McPherson K, Davies J, Flood A, Smith J, Williams G, Ginzler M, Petticrew M, Black N: Reliability of questionnaire responses as compared with interview in the elderly: Views of the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate. Soc Sci Med 1991;33: 1303–1308.
14.
Hakenberg OW, Pinnock CB, Marshall VR: The follow–up of patients with unfavourable early results of transurethral prostatectomy. BJU Int 1999;84:799–804.
15.
Chen SS, Hong JG, Hsiao YJ, Chang LS: The correlation between clinical outcome and residual prostatic weight ratio after transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 2000;85:79–82.
2001
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.