The AUA study evaluates the efficacy of most of the standard treatments
for treating bph.   It looks at outcomes, side effects and duration of
the various treatments.  It is a good reference source for anyone
considering any of these procedures from watchful waiting, to less
invasive measures, to TURP and compares one method to the others in many
different areas.  I suspect this is the one document that UROs rely upon
for their information as they advise patients.  It is good to know what
information is out there as you consider the various treatments, their
side effects and outcomes.  In chapter 3 for example, there is
information how TURP, PVP, and the various TUMT procedures compare
relative to post procedure complications like infection, retrograde
ejaculation, etc.  Takes some effort to find the information, but if
researched information is more helpful than anecdotal information, this
is one place where it is available.

Chockman, I had a PVP and my uro says he will not TUMT because it is
not as good a procedure and it is largely being done for the higher
reimbursement.  He had done about 140 when he did me and I am very
happy.  Having said that, the report is so long, what does it say?  Joe

I would recommend that all persons with bph considering the treatment
options take a look at the 142 page document written in 2003 on the AUA
website.  Since I have not seen it referenced in this ng, I think it is
worth reading.  I wish I had seen the information prior to my TUMT and
PVP procedures.

http://www.auanet.org/guidelines/bph.cfm