Each of the treatment alternatives of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has its own advantages and disadvantages. The needs and the condition of the patient should be considered in choosing the proper treatment. After the treatment, patient satisfaction should also be considered because objective criteria do not always reflect the efficacy of the treatment. The long-term efficacy of the three alternative treatments of BPH (TURP, TUIP, TUBDP) were compared in a total of 60 men with obstructive symptoms. TUIP was found to be the method of treatment we recommended in young patients with a small and symptomatic adenoma, whereas TURF is still the 'gold standard'.