Impending TURP, not PVP

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Lee - 03 Dec 2004 20:12 GMT

Hello All,

I'm 56 years old, not overweight, generally in very good shape, and very
active (biking, sailing, skiing, hiking, etc., etc.). I've been fending off
BPH for the past 5 years with medications, all with the same uro. However,
symptoms are progressively getting worse and the need for another solution
is on the horizon.

My uro does both TURPs and PVPs. He has scoped and ultrasounded me. He
reports an enlarged prostate, including the median lobe, and a 48-gram
gland.

He says that given my age and my physical condition, TURP is the way to go.
He will do a PVP, but says that I will probably be only 60% to 70% improved
and that I will have to have it done again in the future. How far into the
future he can't say, but he definitely feels it won't be a 1-shot deal.

He says that TURP is the way to "do it right". He feels PVP is great for
"older men" who just want a stronger stream. He says he will be able to
sculpt the gland better with TURP to solve all the problems (frequency,
urgency, and flow) at once and without the need for follow-up surgery.

Your comments would be appreciated.

--
Regards,
Lee

Reply to this Message

TAP - 03 Dec 2004 20:35 GMT

Lee,
I am a 46 year old guy who had a PVP two and a half years ago for a 70+ gram
prostate with large median lobe.

I would never, never, never, never let anyone do a tradional TURP on me
because of risks and the side effects.

PVP has dramatically improved my quality of life with absolutely no side
effects.

Given the choice, it is beyond rationality why someone would chose a TURP
over a PVP at the end of 2004. Realize 40,000 men had a similar choice in
2004 and chose PVP.

Best wishes to you for good health,

Patrick

> Hello All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> Regards,
> Lee

Reply to this Message

Philip Magallanes - 04 Dec 2004 03:31 GMT

Lee,

I'm 57 years old and had a TURP about 3 months ago. My nurse friends and
family suggested that I find a surgeon with lots of experience. My uro had
perfromed 2,000 TURPs in his medical career. Most UROs do not have that
much, if any, experience with PVPs.
I am not suggesting that you have one procedure over another, but it would
be a good idea to get another opinion, if you have the time.

By the way, my TURP went fairly well. I had a catheter for two days and
then went home. Some are less fortunate.
If I had to do it again, I would probably do a little more research.

Wishing you good health,

Phil

> Lee,
> I am a 46 year old guy who had a PVP two and a half years ago for a 70+
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>> Regards,
>> Lee

Reply to this Message

Macro - 07 Dec 2004 21:15 GMT

Your URO is giving you the view which is general throughout the
professional urological world.

In summary, this says that , laser turps such as PVP are somewhat
less traumatic but also somewhat less effective than the traditional
turps.

>Hello All,
>
>I'm 56 years old, not overweight, generally in very good shape, and very
>active (biking, sailing, skiing, hiking, etc., etc.).

Your URO is presumably taking your generally fit physical condition
into account by suggesting that you take the procedute which will give
the best result.

If you were 76 years old, overweight and inactive then he might well
suggest some other procedure.

The accepted wisdom in professional circles is that laser Turps, such
as PVP, are somewhat less traumatic but also less effective than the
traditional TURP.
They also provide no material for post-procedure biopsy. A very
material factor when you take into account that post-procedute
biopsies reveal around malignancy in 10% of patients.

By all means read the posts on this NG BUT don't believe everything
you read - some of it is SOOOO incredibly wrong and misleading that
the authors should be hung by their prostates :-)

You clearly have a "thinking" URO. Treasure him and follow his
advice .

Best wishes.

Reply to this Message