Aim of the Study: To evaluate clinical, urodynamic efficacy and safety of TURP and TVP in patients with symptoms due to obstructive benign prostatic hypertrophy with a prospective multicentric randomized study. Materials and Methods: 150 patients with BPH, urodynamically obstructed, were randomized to receive TURP or TVP. At the end of the recruitment phase, 80 patients underwent TURP and 70 patients underwent TVP. Patients were clinically evaluated by the I-PSS score at months 0, 1, 3, 6 and 12. Preoperative evaluation included complete blood routine examination, PSA, transrectal ultrasound and pressure/flow studies. Pressure/flow studies were also performed after 3 months. Results: There was no statistical difference between groups in any of the preoperative parameters. All patients were considered urodynamically obstructed at preoperative pressure studies. As for catheter days and hospitalization days, statistical differences between TVP and TURP were found; catheter days were 2.71 days (SE 0.12) in the TURP group vs. 1.9 (SE 0.24) in the TVP group (p Discussion: The present study clearly demonstrates that TVP is as effective as TURP in relieving urinary obstruction due to BPH, it offers some advantages in terms of catheterization and hospital stay, but at the price of a higher incidence of postoperative urine incontinence. Technical improvements might solve this problem in the future, perhaps combining TVP with TURP of the apical tissue.