Background: Surgical advancements have significantly improved patient outcomes in the fields of urology and general surgery. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and inguinal hernioplasty performed as a combined procedure versus separate procedures in terms of perioperative parameters, postoperative recovery, and complications.Materials and Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital, enrolling 100 male patients requiring both TURP for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and inguinal hernioplasty for inguinal hernia. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups: Group A (n=50) underwent a combined procedure in a single surgical session, while Group B (n=50) underwent TURP and inguinal hernioplasty as separate procedures with an interval of at least 3-6 weeks. Perioperative parameters, postoperative recovery, and early and late complications were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22.0, with a p-value <0.05 considered significant.Results: The mean operative time was significantly shorter in Group A (95.2 ± 12.3 minutes) than in Group B (110.7 ± 14.6 minutes; p=0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was lower in Group A (150.3 ± 30.5 mL) compared to Group B (170.8 ± 35.2 mL; p=0.045). The duration of anesthesia was also reduced in Group A (105.4 ± 11.8 minutes vs. 115.9 ± 13.2 minutes; p=0.021). Postoperative recovery was faster in the combined group, with a significantly shorter hospital stay (3.4 ± 1.1 days vs. 4.6 ± 1.3 days; p=0.002) and quicker return to normal activities (14.2 ± 2.5 days vs. 16.8 ± 2.8 days; p=0.03). The rates of early and late complications, including urinary retention, wound infection, hematoma, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), hernia recurrence, chronic groin pain, urinary incontinence, and erectile dysfunction, were comparable between the groups (p>0.05).Conclusion: The combined procedure for TURP and inguinal hernioplasty demonstrated significant advantages in reducing operative time, blood loss, anesthesia duration, and hospital stay without increasing perioperative or postoperative complications. Faster recovery and comparable complication rates suggest that a single-session surgical approach is a safe and efficient option for patients requiring both interventions.