Previous Article in Journal
The Evolution and Innovations of Robotic Surgery in Urology: From Early Pioneers to Emerging Competitor
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Uro
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/uro6020014
uro-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Comparative Outcomes of TURP, TUVP, and PAE in the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Single Center Real-World Study

by
Teddy Jabbour
1,*,
Laurent Bairy
2,
Benoit Bihin
3,
Jean-Francois De Wispelaere
4 and
Marcelo Di Gregorio
1
1
Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Université Catholique de Louvain Namur-Site Godinne, 5530 Namur, Belgium
2
Department of Anesthesia, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Université Catholique de Louvain Namur-Site Godinne, 5530 Namur, Belgium
3
Scientific Support Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Université Catholique de Louvain Namur-Site Godinne, 5530 Namur, Belgium
4
Departments of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Université Catholique de Louvain Namur-Site Godinne, 5530 Namur, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Uro 2026, 6(2), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/uro6020014
Submission received: 9 March 2026 / Revised: 19 April 2026 / Accepted: 15 May 2026 / Published: 20 May 2026
Versions Notes

Abstract

Purpose: To compare real-world outcomes of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP), and prostate artery embolization (PAE) in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: A retrospective cohort of 203 patients undergoing TURP, TUVP, or PAE was analyzed. Outcomes included IPSS, QoL, IIEF, prostate volume, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), and post-void residual volume (PVR) at 12 months. Adjusted analyses used ANCOVA and propensity score weighting. Results: All groups showed improvement. TURP provided the greatest improvements in IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and prostate volume reduction. TUVP outcomes were intermediate; while symptom improvements (IPSS) were comparable in weighted models, TURP provided significantly greater improvements in Qmax and prostate volume reduction across all adjusted analyses. Conclusions: TURP remains an effective option for symptomatic BPH; TUVP and PAE offer modest benefits and remain viable alternatives in selected patients.
Keywords: benign prostatic hyperplasia; TURP; vaporisation; embolisation benign prostatic hyperplasia; TURP; vaporisation; embolisation

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jabbour, T.; Bairy, L.; Bihin, B.; De Wispelaere, J.-F.; Di Gregorio, M. Comparative Outcomes of TURP, TUVP, and PAE in the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Single Center Real-World Study. Uro 2026, 6, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/uro6020014

AMA Style

Jabbour T, Bairy L, Bihin B, De Wispelaere J-F, Di Gregorio M. Comparative Outcomes of TURP, TUVP, and PAE in the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Single Center Real-World Study. Uro. 2026; 6(2):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/uro6020014

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jabbour, Teddy, Laurent Bairy, Benoit Bihin, Jean-Francois De Wispelaere, and Marcelo Di Gregorio. 2026. "Comparative Outcomes of TURP, TUVP, and PAE in the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Single Center Real-World Study" Uro 6, no. 2: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/uro6020014

APA Style

Jabbour, T., Bairy, L., Bihin, B., De Wispelaere, J.-F., & Di Gregorio, M. (2026). Comparative Outcomes of TURP, TUVP, and PAE in the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Single Center Real-World Study. Uro, 6(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/uro6020014

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop