Skip to main content

TUIP — Transurethral Incision of the Prostate

Transurethral Incision of the Prostate (TUIP) is a simple, quick, and underutilized surgical procedure for bladder outlet obstruction in men with small prostates (≤ 30 g).[1][2][3][4] It offers equivalent symptom relief to TURP with significantly lower morbidity, shorter operative time, and dramatically better ejaculatory preservation. It is also the treatment of choice for primary bladder neck obstruction (PBNO) in younger men.[5][6] For positioning vs other BPH options see BPH & Male LUTS — chooser.

Mechanism​

Unlike TURP, which removes tissue, TUIP works by incising the bladder neck and prostatic urethra without removing prostatic tissue. As the incisions are deepened through the prostatic capsule, the bladder neck and prostatic urethra spring open, relieving the circumferential compression that causes obstruction.[2][7] The mechanism is analogous to cutting a tight ring — the tissue splays apart, widening the channel. No tissue is resected → no specimen for histological analysis.[8]

Procedure​

Performed under regional or general anesthesia; typical OR time 10–20 min — the shortest of any surgical BPH procedure.[2][3][9]

  1. Standard resectoscope (or cystoscope with Collins knife / Collings electrode) into the prostatic urethra.
  2. Identify interureteric ridge (proximal limit), verumontanum (distal limit), and ureteral orifices.
  3. Incision technique:
    • Single incision at the 6 o'clock position from just distal to the interureteric ridge to the verumontanum, deepened through prostatic tissue until the surgical capsule or periprostatic fat is reached.[7][9]
    • Double incision at the 5 and 7 o'clock positions with the same proximal-to-distal trajectory — more commonly described in the literature.[2]
  4. Deepen with electrocautery (monopolar or bipolar) or holmium:YAG laser until the bladder neck visibly springs open.
  5. Hemostasis with coagulation.
  6. Foley catheter placed — often removed within 24 hours, or omitted entirely with laser TUIP.

Energy sources​

  • Monopolar electrocautery (Collins knife) — traditional approach.
  • Bipolar electrocautery — eliminates TUR-syndrome risk.
  • Holmium:YAG laser — Cornford 1998 prospective n=100: 97% voided without postop catheterization; IPSS 19.2 → 3.7 and Qmax 9.8 → 19.2 mL/s at 6 weeks, sustained at 2 yr; all 77 preoperatively potent men remained potent; retrograde ejaculation in only 8 (10.4%).[10]

Patient selection​

TUIP is indicated for a specific subset of BPH patients[2][8][4]:

  • Prostate size ≤ 30 g — the critical selection criterion. Most RCTs enrolled men with prostates < 30 g; some authors extend feasibility to ≤ 50 g.[1]
  • Moderate-to-severe LUTS with urodynamic evidence of bladder outlet obstruction.
  • No significant median lobe — TUIP does not address median-lobe obstruction.
  • Primary bladder-neck obstruction (PBNO) — the most effective therapy for this condition, particularly in younger men (mean age ~ 40 yr) who failed alpha-blockers.[5][6]
  • Ejaculatory-preservation priority — TUIP has the lowest retrograde-ejaculation rate of any traditional surgical BPH procedure.
  • Can be performed as an outpatient procedure.[8]

Clinical efficacy​

Yang 2001 SR / meta — TUIP vs TURP​

9 RCTs / 795 patients[11][1]:

  • Symptom improvement equivalent at 12 mo.
  • Qmax improvement greater with TURP (TURP +112% vs TUIP +76%).[2]
  • TUIP had shorter OR time and shorter LOS.
  • 12-mo reoperation equivalent; long-term reoperation higher with TUIP.

Riehmann 1995 RCT — 120 patients, mean follow-up 34 mo[3]​

  • No significant difference in irritative / obstructive / total symptom scores at any visit.
  • Qmax higher (not statistically) with TURP.
  • Retrograde ejaculation 68% (TURP) vs 35% (TUIP) (p = 0.020).
  • Retreatment 16% (TURP) vs 23% (TUIP) — not significant (p = 0.908).
  • Authors' framing: TUIP is "an underutilized procedure".

Christensen 1990 RCT — 93 patients, single 6 o'clock incision[9]​

  • 80–90% improvement at 3 mo in each arm.
  • No significant difference in symptom scores or Qmax.
  • OR time, blood loss, catheter duration, LOS all significantly favored TUIP.
  • Retrograde ejaculation 37% (TURP) vs 13% (TUIP) — not statistically significant in this sample.

Sirls 1993 long-term — 41 patients, mean 53 mo[12]​

  • Significant decrease in total / obstructive / irritative scores (p < 0.05).
  • Only 11% new retrograde ejaculation.

Wei 2025 JAMA head-to-head with TURP[4]​

ParameterTUIPTURP
Prostate size≤ 30 g≤ 80 g
IPSS Δ−12.7 at 48 mo−15.1 at 12 mo / −13.2 at 60 mo
Qmax Δ+8.2 mL/s at 48 mo+10.6 / +6.3
5-yr retreatment13%7.7%
Incontinence (0–3 mo)0–2%0–5%
Erectile dysfunction8%14%
Retrograde ejaculation22%60–75%

Retreatment and durability — TUIP's principal limitation​

SourcePopulationFollow-upRetreatment
He 2023 SR130,106 across all BPH procedures[13]5 yrTUIP 13.4% vs TURP 7.7% / HoLEP 6.6% / Aquablation 4.1%
Yang 2001 SR9 RCTs / 795 pts[11]long-termHigher than TURP (not always significant in individual trials)
Page 2025 NHS England 10-yr retrospective155,874 patients[14]10 yrLess invasive treatments (incl TUIP) higher reintervention vs TURP, but lower in-hospital complications
Katz 1990 single-incision series66 pts, mean 2.24 yr[7]mediumSubsequent TURP 7.6%

Safety profile​

TUIP has a substantially lower complication profile than TURP.[2][11][1]

ComplicationTUIPTURP
Transfusion1%6%
TUR syndrome~ 0% (rare)1–2%
Impotence / ED2–8%5–14%
Retrograde ejaculation11–35%37–75%
Incontinence0–2%0–6%
UTIsimilarsimilar
Urethral stricturesimilarsimilar
Urinary retentionsimilarsimilar
Mortalityextremely rare0.1%

Sexual function — TUIP's defining advantage​

  • Across four early RCTs, retrograde ejaculation occurred in 15% TUIP vs 66% TURP.[2]
  • Riehmann RCT: 35% vs 68% (p = 0.020).[3]
  • Single-incision series (Katz 1990): antegrade ejaculation preserved in 83.3%.[7]
  • Holmium-laser TUIP (Cornford 1998): retrograde ejaculation in only 10.4% of preoperatively potent men.[10]
  • Long-term study (Sirls 1993): only 11% new retrograde ejaculation at mean 53 mo.[12]
  • Pooled impotence: 2% TUIP vs 5% TURP.[2]

Mechanism of preservation: TUIP makes only 1–2 discrete incisions through the bladder neck rather than circumferentially resecting the entire bladder-neck mechanism as in TURP. This preserves more of the internal sphincter's circular muscle fibers and maintains the antegrade ejaculatory pathway.[15]

Ejaculation-Sparing Bladder Neck Incision (ESBNI)​

Sinha 2026 — limiting the distal extent of the incision to ~ 10 mm proximal to the verumontanum preserved antegrade ejaculation in 100% of patients (51/53 with available data), with 90% demonstrating normal ejaculatory function. Median postop Qmax 17 mL/s; 18/19 catheter-dependent patients became catheter-free.[16]

TUIP for primary bladder-neck obstruction (PBNO)​

TUIP / bladder-neck incision is the definitive treatment for PBNO — a condition affecting younger men (mean age ~ 40 yr) presenting with LUTS, decreased flow, and elevated voiding pressures localized to the bladder neck on video-urodynamics.

SeriesnKey finding
Trockman 1996[5]36 (mean age 41)Significant improvements in symptom scores, Qmax, PVR, voiding pressures; 87% overall symptom improvement. Only 30% of patients who initially tried alpha-blockers continued long-term due to inadequate relief.
Kaplan 1994[6]34 (age 26–51) misdiagnosed as chronic nonbacterial prostatitisBladder-neck incision at 5 o'clock; marked improvement in 30/31; Qmax 9.2 → 16.4 mL/s. All 31 reported postoperative antegrade ejaculation.
Kochakarn 2003[17]35 (mean age 40)Unilateral incision: 55% IPSS reduction and 95% Qmax improvement at 1 yr. Sperm count fell 63–69% but remained at 18–21 million/cc — likely sufficient for fertility.

Holmium-laser TUIP vs GreenLight PVP for small prostates​

A retrospective comparison of 191 patients with prostates < 30 mL.[18]

  • Holmium TUIP shorter OR time (30 vs 46 min); longer LOS (0.8 vs 0.3 d) and catheter (1.3 vs 0.4 d).
  • IPSS / QoL / PVR / Qmax improvements comparable at 1 and 5 yr.
  • Reoperation: 6.4% (TUIP) vs 10.4% (PVP).
  • Mean estimated cost per procedure significantly lower for holmium TUIP ($509 CAD vs $1,766 CAD, p = 0.002).

Where TUIP fits in 2026​

StrengthLimitation
Equivalent symptom relief to TURP for small prostatesLimited to prostates ≤ 30 g
Dramatically lower retrograde ejaculation (11–35% vs 60–75%)Higher long-term retreatment rate (13% at 5 yr vs 7.7% TURP)
Shortest OR time of any surgical BPH procedure (10–20 min)No tissue for histological analysis
Outpatient feasibilityDoes not address median-lobe obstruction
Lowest perioperative morbidity (transfusion 1%, TUR syndrome ~ 0%)Less Qmax improvement than TURP
Treatment of choice for PBNO in young menUnderutilized — many urologists default to TURP
Very low cost (especially with holmium laser)Limited long-term data beyond 5 yr

TUIP remains a significantly underutilized procedure despite strong evidence supporting its equivalence to TURP for small prostates.[3][11] It occupies a unique niche for men with small prostates (≤ 30 g), primary bladder neck obstruction, or those prioritizing ejaculatory preservation who do not wish a MIST. In the modern era it competes with UroLift, Rezūm, and iTIND for the ejaculation-sparing niche but offers superior Qmax improvement and lower cost than these MISTs, with the trade-offs of requiring anesthesia and a higher retreatment rate than TURP.

See also​

BPH & Male LUTS — chooser · TURP · AEEP (HoLEP / ThuLEP / ThuFLEP / BipolEP) · Aquablation · GreenLight PVP · UroLift · Rezūm · iTIND · Optilume BPH · PAE · Simple Prostatectomy

References​

1. Lourenco T, Shaw M, Fraser C, et al. The clinical effectiveness of transurethral incision of the prostate: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. World J Urol. 2010;28(1):23-32. doi:10.1007/s00345-009-0496-8

2. Oesterling JE. Benign prostatic hyperplasia — medical and minimally invasive treatment options. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(2):99-109. doi:10.1056/NEJM199501123320207

3. Riehmann M, Knes JM, Heisey D, Madsen PO, Bruskewitz RC. Transurethral resection versus incision of the prostate: a randomized, prospective study. Urology. 1995;45(5):768-775. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80081-8

4. Wei JT, Dauw CA, Brodsky CN. Lower urinary tract symptoms in men. JAMA. 2025;334(9):809-821. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.7045

5. Trockman BA, Gerspach J, Dmochowski R, et al. Primary bladder neck obstruction: urodynamic findings and treatment results in 36 men. J Urol. 1996;156(4):1418-1420. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)65605-2

6. Kaplan SA, Te AE, Jacobs BZ. Urodynamic evidence of vesical neck obstruction in men with misdiagnosed chronic nonbacterial prostatitis and the therapeutic role of endoscopic incision of the bladder neck. J Urol. 1994;152(6 Pt 1):2063-2065. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32309-1

7. Katz PG, Greenstein A, Ratliff JE, Marks S, Guice J. Transurethral incision of the bladder neck and prostate. J Urol. 1990;144(3):694-696. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)39557-5

8. Arnold MJ, Gaillardetz A, Ohiokpehai J. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: rapid evidence review. Am Fam Physician. 2023;107(6):613-622.

9. Christensen MM, Aagaard J, Madsen PO. Transurethral resection versus transurethral incision of the prostate. A prospective randomized study. Urol Clin North Am. 1990;17(3):621-630.

10. Cornford PA, Biyani CS, Powell CS. Transurethral incision of the prostate using the holmium:YAG laser: a catheterless procedure. J Urol. 1998;159(4):1229-1231.

11. Yang Q, Peters TJ, Donovan JL, Wilt TJ, Abrams P. Transurethral incision compared with transurethral resection of the prostate for bladder outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Urol. 2001;165(5):1526-1532.

12. Sirls LT, Ganabathi K, Zimmern PE, et al. Transurethral incision of the prostate: an objective and subjective evaluation of long-term efficacy. J Urol. 1993;150(5 Pt 2):1615-1621. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35858-5

13. He W, Ding T, Niu Z, et al. Reoperation after surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1287212. doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1287212

14. Page T, O'Toole E, Keltie K, et al. Surgery for benign prostate enlargement in England: 10-year retrospective study of 155,874 patients. BJU Int. 2025;136(1):109-119. doi:10.1111/bju.16713

15. Couteau N, Duquesne I, Frédéric P, et al. Ejaculations and benign prostatic hyperplasia: an impossible compromise? A comprehensive review. J Clin Med. 2021;10(24):5788. doi:10.3390/jcm10245788

16. Sinha S, Lakhani D, Prasad CR. Ejaculation sparing bladder neck incision for young men with primary bladder neck obstruction. Int J Urol. 2026;33(5):e70478. doi:10.1111/iju.70478

17. Kochakarn W, Lertsithichai P. Unilateral transurethral incision for primary bladder neck obstruction: symptom relief and fertility preservation. World J Urol. 2003;21(3):159-162. doi:10.1007/s00345-003-0343-2

18. Elshal AM, Elkoushy MA, Elmansy HM, Sampalis J, Elhilali MM. Holmium:YAG transurethral incision versus laser photoselective vaporization for benign prostatic hyperplasia in a small prostate. J Urol. 2014;191(1):148-154. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.113