Evidence Hub

A Comparative Study of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) Versus Transurethral Incision of the Prostate (TUIP) in Small-Sized Prostate Glands With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Mushtaq Hussain, Kanwal Naz, Ghulam Mustafa, Faisal Haneef, Tanzeel Gazder, Ahmad Waleed, Umair Zafar

Cureus, 2025

35 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Introduction and aim: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a prevalent condition in aging males, often leading to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). While transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold standard for surgical management, transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) is a less invasive alternative for small prostate volumes. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of TURP and TUIP in patients with small prostate glands (<30 mL) suffering from BPH. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted from August 2024 to January 2025 on 70 patients divided into two groups: Group I (TURP, n = 35) and Group II (TUIP, n = 35) at the Urology Department of Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, Karachi. Preoperative and postoperative parameters, including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), urinary flow rates, voided volume, post-void residual (PVR), operative time, catheterization duration, and hospital stay, were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 25. Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in IPSS, average flow rate, maximum flow rate, and PVR at six-month follow-up. TURP had a longer operative time (mean: 61.2 min) compared to TUIP (mean: 32.4 min, p < 0.001). Catheterization duration and hospital stay were shorter in the TUIP group (p < 0.05). Blood transfusion was required in 5.7% of TURP patients and none in the TUIP group. Retrograde ejaculation was…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 35 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free