|
|
|
Year :2016
|
Month :
January
|
Volume :
5
|
Issue :
1
|
Page :
16 - 19
|
Trans Urethral Resection of Prostate for Symptomatic BPH in Rural Area
|
|
|
Correspondence Address :
Amit Kumar, Devendra Kumar Shiwach,
Dr Amit Kumar,
105, Staff Quarter, Rama Medcial College, NH 24,
Pilkhuwa, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh-245304, India.
E-mail: dramitkr@hotmail.com
|
|
Introduction: Introduction: Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) is quite a common disease in the older male with increasing incidence with age. Many patients require surgical treatment and presently TURP(Trans Urethral Resection of Prostate) is considered the gold standard in surgical management of bladder outlet obstruction but is still not routinely available in most resource poor areas.
Aim: To observe and assess the outcome of TURP being done in our institution hospital which is situated in rural area and catering mainly to the surrounding region.
Materials and Methods: The records of patients who presented to the surgical OPD with LUTS and were assessed to undergo TURP for prostatic hyperplasia. We present our experience with series of 47 patients and posit that TURP can be used for most patients presenting with BPH in peripheral areas.
Results: In the study period 47 TURP procedures were performed for BPH. The mean age of the cohort was 67.9 years;( ranging from 56 to 84 years). The mean prostatic volume was 44.06 grams (range 32 to 76 grams) and mean operating time was 48 minutes (range 29 to 85 minutes). Blood transfusion was required in 3 patients (6.3%). No patients required open intervention and there were no mortalities. The common complications were bleeding (12%), UTI and clot retention.
Conclusion: TURP is not available to majority of rural population having symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) due to lack of facility but remains the treatment of choice provided trained surgeons and facilities are there. The overall cost of TURP is marginally higher for an average rural patient as compared to open surgery but is worthwhile in view of its inherent minimal trauma, short hospital stay and early recovery and huge cost advantage over newer therapies like HoLEP or PVP.
|
|
|
[
FULL TEXT ] | [
 ]
|
|
|
|
|