From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. General Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

OUTCOME AFTER SURGERY FOR BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERTROPHY.

The standard approach to treating benign prostatic hypertrophy is transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), despite the absence of careful evaluation of this therapy in comparison with other treatments. These investigators, however, raise some doubts about the wisdom of this standard. They evaluated data from more than 54,000 men from Denmark, England, and Canada who had undergone TURP or open prostatectomy with up to eight years of follow-up. The two groups were compared with respect to overall mortality and the need for a second operation.

Irrespective of the duration of follow-up or the country of origin, men who had a TURP were significantly more likely to require a repeat procedure. After eight years, the likelihood of a second procedure for men who had a TURP, depending on the country, ranged from 2.7 to 6.7 times greater than the risk for men who had an open prostatectomy. In addition, men who had a TURP had a significantly higher mortality rate at the end of the follow-up period. Even after adjustment for age, other diagnoses, and medications, the long-term mortality rate for TURP patients was about 1.5 times that for open-prostatectomy patients.

Because these data are retrospective, the mortality differences may be explained by selection biases. The authors recommend a randomized trial of TURP versus open prostatectomy, a sentiment echoed by Greenfield in an accompanying editorial.

— KIM

Published in Journal Watch General Medicine May 5, 1989

Citation(s):

Greenfield S. The state of outcome research: are we on target?. N Engl J Med 1989 Apr 27 320 1142-1143.

Roos NP et al. Mortality and reoperation after open and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 1989 Apr 27 320 1120-1124.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. We ask that you keep your remarks to a reasonable length, and we reserve the right to withhold publication of remarks that do not meet this standard.

The editors of Journal Watch may respond to Reader Remarks, but we cannot promise to respond to a particular remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Sign-In

Forgot your password? Login via Athens
or your institution

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 1989. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.