Yonsei Med J.  2006 Oct;47(5):715-720. 10.3349/ymj.2006.47.5.715.

Transurethral Resection of the Prostate with a Bipolar Tissue Management System Compared to Conventional Monopolar Resectoscope: One-Year Outcome

• Yoon CJ
• Kim JY
• Moon KH
• Jung HC
• Park TC

• KMID: 1381253
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2006.47.5.715

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bipolar transurethral prostatectomy (TURP) using the GyrusTM PlasmaKinetic System compared with conventional monopolar TURP. This study included 102 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who underwent TURP from January 2003 to March 2005. In all, 49 consecutive patients had bipolar and 53 had monopolar TURP. All patients were assessed by preoperative and postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), uroflowmetry, transrectal ultrasonography, operative time, weight of resected tissue, change in serum sodium and hemoglobin, duration of catheter use, length of hospital stay, and complication rates. Significant improvement was seen postoperatively in both groups, and no difference was observed in the resection time, weight of resected tissue, change in serum sodium and hemoglobin, improvement of IPSS and peak flow rate (Qmax), or complication rates over the 12-month follow-up in both groups. There was, however, a significant difference in duration of catheter use and hospital stay. Duration of catheter use (2.28 days vs. 3.12 days) and hospital stay (3.52 days vs. 4.27 days) were shorter in the bipolar group (p = 0.012 vs. p = 0.034, respectively). Our results demonstrate that bipolar TURP using the Gyrus(TM) Plasma Kinetic System is as effective as conventional monopolar TURP with the additional advantage of reduced length of catheter use and hospital stay. Bipolar TURP is a promising new technique that may prove to be a good alternative to conventional TURP in the future.

Keyword

Prostatic hyperplasia; transurethral resection of prostate

MeSH Terms

Treatment Outcome
Transurethral Resection of Prostate/adverse effects/*instrumentation/methods
Prostatic Hyperplasia/*surgery
Prostate/*surgery
Middle Aged
Male
Humans
Follow-Up Studies
Equipment and Supplies/standards
Aged

Reference

1. Barba M, Leyh H, Hartung R. New technologies in transurethral resection of the prostate. Curr Opin Urol. 2000. 10:9–14.

2. Wasson JH, Reda DJ, Bruskewitz RC, Elinson J, Keller AM, Henderson WG. A comparison of transurethral surgery with watchful waiting for moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Transurethral Resection of the Prostate. N Engl J Med. 1995. 332:75–79.

3. Madersbacher S, Schatzl G, Djavan B, Stulnig T, Marberger M. Long-term outcome of transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol. 2000. 37:687–694.

4. Kaplan SA. Minimally invasive alternative therapeutic options for lower urinary tract symptoms. Urology. 1998. 51(4A):Suppl. 32–37.

5. Larson TR. Rationale and assessment of minimally invasive approaches to benign prostatic hyperplasia therapy. Urology. 2002. 59(2):Suppl 1. 12–16.

6. Doll HA, Black NA, McPherson K, Flood AB, Williams GB, Smith JC. Mortality, morbidity and complications following transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hypertrophy. J Urol. 1992. 147:1566–1573.

7. Horninger W, Unterlechner H, Strasser H, Bartsch G. Transurethral prostatectomy: mortality and morbidity. Prostate. 1996. 28:195–200.

8. Uchida T, Ohori M, Soh S, Sato T, Iwamura M, Ao T, et al. Factors influencing morbidity in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate. Urology. 1999. 53:98–105.

9. Kolmert T, Norlen H. Transurethral resection of the prostate. A review of 1111 cases. Int Urol Nephrol. 1989. 21:47–55.

10. Koshiba K, Egawa S, Ohori M, Uchida T, Yokoyama E, Shoji K. Does transurethral resection of the prostate pose a risk to life? 22-year outcome. J Urol. 1995. 153:1506–1509.

11. Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC. Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J Urol. 1989. 141:243–247.

12. Botto H, Lebret T, Barre P, Orsoni JL, Herve JM, Lugagne PM. Electrovaporization of the prostate with the Gyrus device. J Endourol. 2001. 15:313–316.

13. Eaton AC, Francis RN. The provision of transurethral prostatectomy on a day-case basis using bipolar plasma kinetic technology. BJU Int. 2002. 89:534–537.

14. Wendt-Nordahl G, Hacker A, Reich O, Djavan B, Alken P, Michel MS. The Vista system: a new bipolar resection device for endourological procedures: comparison with conventional resectoscope. Eur Urol. 2004. 46:586–590.

15. Dunsmuir WD, McFarlane JP, Tan A, Dowling C, Downie J, Kourambas J, et al. Gyrus bipolar electrovaporization vs transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective single-blind trial with 1 y follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2003. 6:182–186.

16. Starkman JS, Santucci RA. Comparison of bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate with standard transurethral prostatectomy: shorter stay, earlier catheter removal and fewer complications. BJU Int. 2005. 95:69–71.

17. Tefekli A, Muslumanoglu AY, Baykal M, Binbay M, Tas A, Altunrende F. A hybrid technique using bipolar energy in transurethral prostate surgery: a prospective, randomized comparison. J Urol. 2005. 174:1339–1343.

18. Singh H, Desai MR, Shrivastav P, Vani K. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of prostate: randomized controlled study. J Endourol. 2005. 19:333–338.