Cakiroglu, BasriHazar, Aydin IsmetSinanoglu, OrhunArda, ErsanEkici, Sinan2024-07-122024-07-1220171124-35622282-419710.4081/aiua.2017.1.312-s2.0-85019198144https://dx.doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2017.1.31https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12415/7796Background: To compare the functional outcomes and retrograde ejaculation (RE) after transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) or silodosin in bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) secondary to a small prostate. Methods: Prospectively collected data from December 2011 through December 2014 of 192 LUTS patients having fertility concerns with prostate volume smaller than 40 ml receiving either TUIP or silodosin treatment were prospectively reviewed. The treatment outcomes were evaluated and compared. Results: TUIP was performed in 96 cases and silodosin 8 mg was prescribed in 96 cases. At 12th months after TUIP or continuous silodosin treatment, the decrease in mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and postvoiding residual urine (PVR) and the improvement of mean maximal flow rate (Q(max)) were significant (p = 0.000). The improvement in IPPS and Qmax was significantly higher in TUIP group compared to silodosin group (p = 0.005, p = 0.000) with a lower rate of retrograde ejaculation (RE) in TUIP group. (11/96 vs 33/96) (p = 0.000) Conclusions: Both TUIP and silodosin ensures comparable improvement in PVR, IPSS and Q(max) with a lower rate of RE on the TUIP group in prostates weighing less than 40 grams suggesting that TUIP is a better choice in younger patiens seeking preservation of ejaculation with fertility concerns.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessProstateRetrograde ejaculationSilodosinTransurethral incision prostateArticle33128403592Q33189WOS:000406053700007N/A