Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of low-volume TURP on patients with BPH. Methods A total of 76 high-risk patients with BPH were treated with either standard TURP (Group 1,n=39) or low-volume TURP(Group 2,n=37).The operative duration,blood loss,postoperative irrigation time,IPSS,Qmax,postvoid urine residual volume (PURV) were comparatively evaluated. Results In Groups 1 and 2,the operation durations were (67.5?18.2)min and (16.4?3.5)min (P= 0.011);blood loss,(158.4?47.3)ml and (54.7?25.2)ml (P=0.013);postoperative irrigation time (4.9?1.8)d and (1.3?0.5)d (P=0.029);IPSS change (19.3?7.6) and (15.3?9.7)(P=0.46);Qmax (13.4?8.8)ml/s and (11.7?9.1)ml/s (P=0.79);PURV (134.9?68.6)ml and (163.8? 94.5)ml (P=0.17) respectively.31 cases in Group 2 (low-volume TURP) were followed up for 2 to 18 months (mean,10 months) with satisfactory results. Conclusions The low-volume TURP is effective and characterized by shorter operative duration,minimal-invasion and better tolerance for the high-risk patients with BPH.