You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized1 Apr 20111299 CAN SPLITTING TURP AND HIFU IN TWO SESSION REDUCE COMPLICATION RATE? Roberto Sanseverino, Olivier Intilla, Giorgio Napodano, Umberto Di Mauro, and Tommaso Realfonso Roberto SanseverinoRoberto Sanseverino Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author , Olivier IntillaOlivier Intilla Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author , Giorgio NapodanoGiorgio Napodano Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author , Umberto Di MauroUmberto Di Mauro Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author , and Tommaso RealfonsoTommaso Realfonso Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.999AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate whether splitting TURP and Hifu in two session can reduce complication rate in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS From November 2004 to September 2010, 103 patients affected by localized prostate cancer underwent HIFU following TURP. In 39 patients both procedures were performed in the same session (Group A); in 64 patients HIFU was delayed (Group B). Follow up included serial PSA measurements and prostate biopsies 6 months after the treatment in all patients. Biochemical recurrence was defined as PSA nadir + 2ng/ml (ASTRO 2005 criteria). We have evaluated complication rate in the Group A and B. RESULTS The mean age, PSA and prostate volume were 73.3 (±5.4) years, 8.2 (±19.3) ng/ml and 29 (±8,3) cc, respectively. Mean procedure time was 128 minutes and mean hospitalization was 3.4 days. Complications occurred in 30 patients. Complication rate was not associated with clinical stage (T1 vs T2) (p0,67), Gleason score (p0,62), age (p0,2), prostate volume (p0,06), PSA (p0,9). Complications rate was lower when HIFU has been delayed after TURP (Group B) [see table]. Complications occurred in 61% (24/39) of Group A patients and in 9,3% (6/64) of Group B patients (p<0,001). No significant differences were seen between Group A and B patients in terms of clinical stage (p0,9), Gleason score (p0,2), prostate volume (p0,3), age (p0,4) and PSA (p0,46). COMPLICATIONS IN GROUP A AND GROUP B UTI INCONTINENCE I-II INCONTINENCE III URETHRAL STENOSIS BLADDER NECK STRICTURES AUR RECTOURINARY FISTULA OVERALL PTS 14 21 3 7 10 8 1 GROUP A 11 18 3 7 8 6 1 GROUP B 3 3 0 0 2 2 0 CONCLUSIONS Splitting TURP and HIFU in two different sessions seems to reduce postoperative complications and improve patient tolerance of the procedure. Longer follow up and larger patient population are needed to obtain more robust evidence. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e520 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Roberto Sanseverino Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author Olivier Intilla Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author Giorgio Napodano Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author Umberto Di Mauro Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author Tommaso Realfonso Nocera Inferiore, Italy More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...