Doctor’s Passport

Find your next topic

Explore the current textbook

Available drafts · Clinical review pending
Membership
Educational draft · awaiting clinical reviewUse Rapid for revision, not patient-care decisions. Check current national and local guidance and the BNF or BNFC before acting.
Rapid

TURP and alternative outlet procedures

Essential points for quick revision.

Saved on this device

Synopsis

Compare outlet procedures using the indication, prostate anatomy, expected durability, functional priorities and perioperative safety requirements.

  • Consider outlet surgery for severe refractory symptoms or important obstructive complications after confirming a treatable mechanism.
  • TURP removes obstructing tissue endoscopically; it is not a radical prostatectomy and does not remove every future cancer risk.
  • Prostate size, median-lobe anatomy and bladder contractility affect procedure suitability and the chance of catheter independence.

Reasoning priorities

01
Symptom and functional baseline

Define the expected benefit and permit later evaluation of the outcome.

Record IPSS, quality of life, continence, erection and ejaculation, plus the reason intervention is being considered. A voiding score improvement is not equivalent to improved sleep or preserved sexual function, so record the patient’s priority separately.

Worked reasoning

Worked caseA durable solution for recurrent retention

A 75-year-old man has repeated failed TWOC after benign outlet retention.

  1. He has a 105 ml prostate, recovered renal function after drainage and no unresolved infection. Assessment supports outlet resistance, and he prioritises freedom from a catheter over preservation of antegrade ejaculation.
  2. The team explains that gland size makes enucleation an attractive option and discusses HoLEP at an experienced centre, with an alternative surgical plan if local expertise or anatomy makes another approach preferable.
  3. Counselling covers bleeding, temporary incontinence, urethral scarring, ejaculatory change and the possibility of ongoing catheter need if contraction is inadequate. His anticoagulant plan is agreed with the relevant prescriber before surgery.
  4. Following HoLEP, haemostasis is satisfactory and subsequent catheter removal produces comfortable voiding with a low residual. Removed tissue is sent for histology and its result is assigned for review.
  5. At follow-up he is catheter-free with improved flow but some resolving urgency. The team confirms continence recovery and histology communication, and revisits storage symptoms instead of calling them evidence that the procedure failed.
Open full textbook Answer 2 questions
Sources and review status4 sources · checked 8 Sept 2026 · clinical review pending
Sources

Sources and review status

National guidance is shown before implementation-dependent detail. Apply principles in context and verify current guidance when a decision affects care. Source check completed 8 Sept 2026; clinical approval remains outstanding.

Authoring stateRapid draftClinical stateAwaiting reviewJurisdictionUnited Kingdom