OBJECTIVE: Evaluating long-term (50 months) efficacy of transurethral intraprostatic injection of absolute ethanol to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: A prospective study was conducted to evaluate 35 patients with BPH treated by transurethral injection of dehydrated ethanol. Mean age was 66.3 years. Endoscopic injection of 6-12 mL ethanol was carried out at 5-10 sites in the prostate. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate, prostate volume, postvoid residual and side effects or complications incidence were logged. RESULTS: Mean IPSS +/- standard deviation improved significantly from 22.0 +/- 3.89 preoperatively to 9.85 +/- 2.23 at 50 months follow-up. Mean peak urinary flow rate increased from 5.87 +/- 3.69 mL/s to 16.89 +/- 4.12 after 4 years. Mean residual urine volume had decreased from 68.6 +/- 49.98 mL to 36.02 +/- 20.87 after 4 years (P < 0.05). The prostate volume decreased from 52.67 +/- 20.43 g preoperatively to 49.94 +/- 21.28 g after 4 years (statistically significant). There were no intra-operative complications but post-operative urine retention occurred in all patients requiring catheterization for a mean 6.7 days. Acute epididymitis and chronic prostatitis occurred in two patients. Urethral stricture occurred in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: This technique appears to be safe and cost effective. No occurrence of retrograde ejaculation was detected. The long-term effects of ethanol injection of the prostate were satisfactory and acceptable as a minimally invasive therapeutic modality of selected patients.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating long-term (50 months) efficacy of transurethral intraprostatic injection of absolute ethanol to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: A prospective study was conducted to evaluate 35 patients with BPH treated by transurethral injection of dehydrated ethanol. Mean age was 66.3 years. Endoscopic injection of 6-12 mL ethanol was carried out at 5-10 sites in the prostate. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate, prostate volume, postvoid residual and side effects or complications incidence were logged. RESULTS: Mean IPSS +/- standard deviation improved significantly from 22.0 +/- 3.89 preoperatively to 9.85 +/- 2.23 at 50 months follow-up. Mean peak urinary flow rate increased from 5.87 +/- 3.69 mL/s to 16.89 +/- 4.12 after 4 years. Mean residual urine volume had decreased from 68.6 +/- 49.98 mL to 36.02 +/- 20.87 after 4 years (P < 0.05). The prostate volume decreased from 52.67 +/- 20.43 g preoperatively to 49.94 +/- 21.28 g after 4 years (statistically significant). There were no intra-operative complications but post-operative urine retention occurred in all patients requiring catheterization for a mean 6.7 days. Acute epididymitis and chronic prostatitis occurred in two patients. Urethral stricture occurred in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: This technique appears to be safe and cost effective. No occurrence of retrograde ejaculation was detected. The long-term effects of ethanol injection of the prostate were satisfactory and acceptable as a minimally invasive therapeutic modality of selected patients.