Skip to main content
Log in

Quality and cost between transcervical and transurethral prostatectomy

  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although transurethral resection of the benign prostate (TURP) is a popular technique, it is not without problems. The average postoperative morbidity could be up to 50%. Therefore the quality of life and the total cost have been evaluated in this study, since the incidence of re-TURP was reported to be as high as 25% in 8 years period. This was attributable to incomplete resection, in that only about 40% of the prostatic tissue being resected by this technique.In contrast, transcervical prostatectomy (TCP) performs a total enucleation of the gland. It seems to be cost effective, in that the postoperative urethral catheter is removed routinely on the second day and the patients are discharged home on the fourth day routinely. The total incidence of morbidity, by contrast, was less than 5% and that of mortality under 1%.The initial cost for the primary operation would not be much difference between the these two techniques, but the average cumulative cost per TURP would be expensive, if all the expenses incurred for the treatment of postoperative complications are added together. It would be between £2574.00 and £2434.00, for the primary operation. But the cumulative cost for TURP would be £4333.00 and for TCP £2580.00. The true cost for the operation of TURP could be as high as £10720, compared to £2434.00, being the operation charge for TCP, if all expenses have to be paid by the patient.Conclusion: Transcervical Prostatectomy compares favourably with TURP in every aspect, apart from the skin cut in the lower abdomen.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Saha SK. Transcervical prostatectomy. Urology 1980; 16: 481–484.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Saha SK. The evaluation of transcervical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 1985; 17: 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Saha SK. Transcervical prostatectomy in perspective. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1992; 26: 339–343.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Emmett JL, Rous SN, Greene LF et al. Preliminary internal urethrotomy in 1036 cases to prevent uretheral stricture following transurethral resection. Calibre of normal adult male urethral. J Urol 1963; 89: 829–835.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lentz Jr HC, Mebust WK, Foret JD, Melchior J. Urethral strictures following transurethral prostaectomy: review of 2,223 resections. J Urol 1977; 117: 194–196.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hammersten J, Lindqvist K, Sunzel H. Urethral strictures following trasnurethral resection of the prostate. The role of the Catheter. Br J Urol 1989; 63: 397–400.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Roos NP, Wenburg JE, Malenke DJ et al. Mortality and reoperation after open and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Eng J Med 1989; 320: 1120–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mebust WK, Holtgrew HL, Cockett ATK, Peters PC. Transurethral prostatectomy immediate and postoperative complications. A co-operative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J Urol 1989; 141: 243–247.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Singh M, Tresidder GC, Blandy JP. The evaluation of transurethral resection for benign enlargement of the prostate. Br J Urol 1973; 45: 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Saha SK. How complete is transurethral resection of the prostate. Br J Urol 1996; 78: 662.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Millin T, Macalister CLC, Kelly PM. Retropubic prostatectomy. Lancet 1949: 381–385.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saha, S.K. Quality and cost between transcervical and transurethral prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 34, 515–518 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025690129223

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025690129223

Navigation