ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effect of transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate (TUERP) versus that of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of high-risk BPH. METHODS: From June 2018 to December 2018, a total of 60 patients with high-risk BPH were randomly assigned to receive TUERP (n = 30) or TURP (n = 30). Comparisons were made between the two groups of patients in the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, volume of the resected prostate, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Compared with the patients treated by TURP, those in the TUERP group showed a significantly shorter operation time(ï¼»76.2±15.9ï¼½ min vs ï¼»47.5±16.1ï¼½ min, P < 0.05), less intraoperative blood loss(ï¼»93.7±33.6 vs ï¼»60.5±25.4ï¼½ mlï¼½ ml, P < 0.05), but a larger volume of the resected prostate(ï¼»30.6±8.5ï¼½ g vs ï¼»42.3±12.2ï¼½ g, P < 0.05)ï¼ and a less incidence of postoperative complications, such as secondary bleeding, uracratia and urethrostenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Both TUERP and TURP are clinically effective for the treatment of high-risk BPH, but TUERP is even better than TURP for its advantages of shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, larger volume of resected prostate, fewer postoperative complications, and less surgical trauma.
