Abstract
Objectives
1. To study BPH, in relation to uroflowmetry after medical line of management and surgical line of management.
2. To study the outcome of both the line of management.
Methods: Between December 2014 to July 2016 we studied 100 men alternatively into medical and surgical catagories, age group of above 50 years, who were attending the outpatient department of Surgery at Krishna institute of medical science karad with symptom likely suggestive of LUTS.
Results: In our study group mean increase in the PFR was 46.39 % in medical therapy (p<0.05) and 94.96% improvement in surgical patient (p<0.0001), the difference is highly significant goes in favor of TURP.
Conclusion: We thus conclude the medical treatment should be offered to those patients who are not willing for surgery, are unfit for surgery or having early symptoms of LUTS. Inspite of the associated post-operative morbidity in few elderly patients after surgery, of all treatment options, prostate surgery offers the best chance of symptoms improvement with TURP being a gold standard procedure.
Keywords: Benign prostatic enlargement, uroflowmetry , LUTS, TURP, peak flow rates(PFR).
References
1. Mads M. Chrstensen, M.D. and Reginald C. Bruskewitz M.D. Clinical manifestation of benign prostatic hyperplasia and indication for therapeutic intervention. The urologic clinics of North America. 1990:17:509-510,584-585.
2. Garraway WM, Collins GN, Lee RJ: “High prevalence of benign prostatic hypertrophy in the community”. Lancet 1991; 338; 469-471.
3. Abbou C.C., Salmon L. ,Chopin D. The current approach to management of benign hypertrophy of prostate. Ann. Urol (paris) France 1996:30 (6-&):294-299.
4. Caine M, “The present role of alpha-adrenergic blockers in the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy”. 1986, 1361-4.
5. Coffey DS, Walsh PC: “Clinical and experimental studies of benign prostatic hyperplasia”. Urol Coin North 1990; 17: 461-475.
6. Peters CA, Walsh PC: “The effect of Nafarelin acetate, a luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist, on benign prostatic hyperplasia”. N. Engl J Med 1987: 317: 599-604.
7. Lepor II. Knapp-Maloney G, Wozniak-Petrofsky: “The safety and efficacy of terazosin for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction”. Mt J Clin Pharmacol TherToxicol 1989,27: 392.
8. Lepor H, Rigaud G: “The efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate in men with moderate symptoms of LUTS”. I Urol 1990,143: 533.
9. Mukendo Kojima, YshioNaya, Wataru Inoue, Osamu Vkimura, Makota et al. The American Urological Association symp-tom index for BPH as function of age, volume and ultrasonic apperance of prostate J.Urol.1995 June:157:2160-2165
10. Mc Connell JD, Barry Mi. Bruskewitz RC, et al: Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Diagnosis and Treatment. Clinical Practise Guidelines. No. 8, AHCPR Publication No 94-0582. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services,1994.
11. Mebust WK Holtgrewe HL: Current status of transuretheral prostatectomy: A review of the AUA National Study. World J.Urol.1989:6:194-197.
12. Jackman FR Chisholm G.D: Urinary infection and prostatectomy :British Journal of Urology 1957:47:545-549.
Rob and Smith’s operative surgery, Genitourinary surgery: Endoscopic proce-dures 5th edition edited by Hugh N. Whitefield, Butterworth-Heinemamn, Oxford 1993:144-145.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i1.26
