ArticleCureus2025
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.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimBenign 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsBoth 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 more common in the TURP group, 40% versus 12% in the TUIP group. No significant difference was noted in reoperation rates.
conclusionTUIP is a safe and effective alternative to TURP for small-sized prostates, offering comparable symptomatic relief with shorter operative times, reduced catheterization duration, and fewer complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.