Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of TURP, TUVRP, and HoLEP

  • Published:
Current Prostate Reports

Abstract

Since the first transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was performed by Guyon at the Necker Hospital in Paris in 1901, this treatment modality has replaced open prostatectomy as the procedure of choice for more than 95% of patients. TURP has been used in surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and remains the gold standard treatment. Transurethral vapor resection of the prostate (TUVRP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) are new treatment modalities for the treatment of BPH. Each procedure has its own advantages and disadvantages. Availability of instruments, surgical expertise, and specific indications for a particular procedure are of utmost importance for successful outcome, with minimal morbidity. TURP can be either monopolar or bipolar, using a thin or thick loop. Bipolar TURP is associated with less bleeding and less chances of dilutional hyponatremia. TUVRP, using a thick wedge loop, causes vaporization and resection of the prostate, and is associated with less bleeding and short operative time. HoLEP is another effective alternative for the surgical treatment of BPH. The holmium laser possesses the ideal combination of cutting and coagulation; however, it has a learning curve.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Cattolica EV, Sidney S, Sadler MC: The safety of transurethral prostatectomy: a cohort study of mortality in 9,416 men. J Urol 1997, 158:102–104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Leport H, Rigaud G: The efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate in men with moderate symptoms of prostatism. J Urol 1990, 143:533–537.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Dowd JB, et al.: Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J Urol 1989, 141:243–247.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lu-Yao GL, Barry MJ, Chang CH, et al.: Transurethral resection of the prostate among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States: time trends and outcomes. Urology 1994, 44:692–698.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Iori F, Franco G, Leonardo C, et al.: Bipolar transurethral resection of prostate: clinical and urodynamic evaluation. Urology 2008, 71:252–255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roehrborn CG, Bartsch G, Kirby NR, et al.: Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comparative international overview. Urology 2001, 58:642–650.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kupeli S, Yilmaz E, Soygur T, et al.: Randomized study of transurethral resection of the prostate and combined transurethral resection and vaporization of the prostate as a therapeutic alternative in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Endourol 2001, 15:317–321.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Perlmutter AP: Advances in electrosurgical technique. Curr Opin Urol 1997, 7:21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaplan SA, Te AE: Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate: a novel method for treating men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 1995, 45:566–573.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Holmes M, Cox J, Wright W, et al.: Thick vs thin loop resection of the prostate: a randomized blind trial. BJU Int 2000, 85:202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cynk M, Woodham S, Mostafi H, et al.: A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing vaportome prostatic resection with TURP. BJU Int 1999, 83(Suppl 4):6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Perlmutter AP, Schulsinger DA: The “wedge” resection device for electrosurgical transurethral prostatectomy. J Endourol 1998, 12:75–79.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel A, Fuchs GJ, Guttierrez-Aceves J, et al.: Transurethral electrovaporization and vapour-resection of the prostate: an appraisal of possible electrosurgical alternatives to regulate loop resection. BJU Int 2000, 85:202–210.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Talic RF: Transurethral electrovaporization-resection of the prostate using the “wing” cutting electrode: preliminary results of safety and efficacy in the treatment of men with prostatic outflow obstruction. Urology 1999, 53:106–110.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta NP, Doddamani D, Aron M, et al.: Vapor resection: a good alternative to standard loop resection in the management of prostates > 40 cc. J Endourol 2002, 16:767–771.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gupta Narmada P, Singh A, Kumar R: Transurethral vapor resection of prostate is a good alternative for prostates > 70 g. J Endourol 2007, 21:1543–1546.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gupta NP, Sivaramakrishna KR, Dogra PN, et al.: Comparison of standard transurethral resection, transurethral vapour resection and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia of >40 g. BJU Int 2006, 97:85–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gilling PJ, Aho TF, Frampton CM, et al.: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: results at 6 years. Eur Urol 2008, 53:744–749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matlaga BR, Kim SC, Kuo RL, et al.: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for prostates of >125 ml. BJU Int 2006, 97:81–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vavassori I, Valenti S, Naspro R, et al.: Three-year outcome following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate combined with mechanical morcellation in 330 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 2008, 53:599–606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahyai SA, Lehrich K, Kuntz RM: Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 2007, 52:1456–1463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Narmada P. Gupta

Authors
  1. Narmada P. Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ajay Anand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narmada P. Gupta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gupta, N.P., Anand, A. Comparison of TURP, TUVRP, and HoLEP. Curr prostate rep 7, 166–168 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11918-009-0023-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11918-009-0023-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation