Study design, materials and methods
The patients were randomized into three groups: TURP (group 1), TURP plus TAM (group 2), and TURP plus TAM + SOL (group 3). Patients in group 2 and group 3 received medication for 4 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoints were mean change in total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and IPSS sub-scores. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QOL) score, overactive bladder symptom score (OABSS), and International Continence Society (ICS) short form voiding and storage score.
Results
In total, 37 men (31.8%) in group 1, 37 men (31.8%) in group 2, and 42 men (36.2%) in group 3, completed the study. In total IPSS, no significant improvement was seen from baseline to the end of treatment in groups 2 and 3 compared with group 1. However, in group 2 decrement of IPSS storage score was smaller than group 1 (P = 0.02), and in group 3 decrement of IPSS voiding score was smaller than group 1 (P = 0.05). In groups 2 and 3 compared with group 1, improvements in QOL score, OABSS total score, and ICS short form voiding score and storage score were not statistically significant.
Interpretation of results
In our study, lot of patients are suffered by LUTS immediately after TURP, moreover α-blockers and anti muscarinics therapy did not show significant additional benefits to LUTS. These bothering symptom may induced by inflammation of prostatic urethra or edema occurred during TURP. Major findings of present study was early try of LUTS medication does not have a befits who suffered from LUTS during recovery period after TURP.