Clearly they dont know what they are talking about and have simply listened
to their own blinkered urologist's view

Incontinance and impotance are just 2 of the well known side effects of TURP
yet they have not been reported with PVP

Since theres also a major cost saving in terms of hospital bed time etc they
are totally nuts

"webmaster" <admin@NOSPAMabc-sites.info> wrote in message news:
I intend to appeal against their decision and

I consider myself to have had a very successful PVP from Tim Larner at
Nuffield Haywards Heath. I had this done privately, because I didn't
want to have to go through all the delays you are experiencing. It
took most of my savings, but was worth it.

In my experience, and from what I heard from Mr. Larner and the nurses
in the hospital, the main advantage of the PVP over the TURP is that
there is hardly any bleeding. With a TURP the bleeding goes on for 4
or 5 days, during which time the patient must be in hospital,
catheterised with a lot of care. The nurses described how they had to
have someone practically full time on a post-TURP patient, checking on
the bleeding. With the PVP, I stayed in overnight and had the catheter
removed the next morning, and left a few hours later. I do get a few
drops of blood every time I pee now, which Mr. Larner told me to
expect for the first few weeks.

The PVP procedure uses a very expensive machine, and, says Mr. Larner,
needs a 'new fibre'  for each operation which costs £750. Nonetheless,
Mr. Larner is convinced that the overall costs of the PVP are much
lower, considering hospital time and care, and that the patient
experience is also very much better.

Hope this is useful.

Regards,
Gary