A randomised study of TURP after intraprostatic injection of mepicacaine/adrenaline versus regular TURP in patients with LUTS/BPO.

INTRODUCTION: During transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), the most established surgical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), the prostate can bleed profusely, bringing about anaemia and compromised oxygen delivery to the entire body. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of mepivacaine and adrenaline (MA) injected into the prostate on bleeding. The primary endpoint was to measure blood loss per resected weight of prostate tissue. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomised controlled trial evaluated 81 patients with LUTS/BPO. Patients were randomly allocated to regular TURP or TURP with intraprostatic injections of MA. RESULTS: On univariable analyses there was a significant difference in resection weight in favour of the experimental group, not reflected by a statistically significant difference in the other studied outcome parameters. Nevertheless, in multivariable analyses, blood loss per resection weight, which was the primary outcome, showed a significant decrease in favour of the experimental group. Clavien-Dindo complication classification showed three men with a grade I complication and two men with grade II. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in this study showed that it is beneficial to apply intraprostatic injections of MA in immediate conjunction with TURP, in terms of blood loss per resected gram. The study is, however, small and corroboration of our results in more extensive prospective studies may therefore be warranted before embarking upon this technique.

Triple treatment of high-risk prostate cancer. A matched cohort study with up to 19 years follow-up comparing survival outcomes after triple treatment and treatment with hormones and radiotherapy.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of a triple treatment strategy, including surgery, on high risk prostate cancer comparing long-term survival outcome with a cohort receiving standard radiotherapy with endocrine therapy. Materials and methods: This study compared two cohorts in survival outcomes, matched on the year of diagnosis and age. In both groups there was a curative intention to treat localized high-risk prostate cancer (one or more of Gleason score 8-10, PSA 20-50 or stage T3), diagnosed between 1995-2010, follow-up at the end of 2014. Triple treatment group: 153 patients treated primarily with radical prostatectomy with neoadjuvant endocrine treatment, and a majority with adjuvant radiotherapy. Standard radiotherapy group: 702 patients with a treatment of either external radiotherapy or high dose brachytherapy combined with external beam therapy, both modalities in combination with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Results: The prostate-cancer-specific mortality was 10% for the triple treatment group and 15% for the standard radiotherapy group during the period, HR = 2.01 (1.17-3.43), p = 0.011. The corresponding overall mortality was 26% vs 29%, HR = 1.54 (1.09-2.17), p = 0.015. High Gleason score was the dominating risk factor for early death due to the disease. Clinical T-stage was not an independent risk factor for death in this population. Conclusion: Adding surgery in a multimodal treatment model in high-risk prostate cancer showed significantly better survival outcome compared with the current standard of radiotherapy. Surgery in this group is, therefore, compelling and that also includes a clinical T3-stage of the disease. The study is limited by possible selection bias for the two treatment models.