Korean J Urol.  2006 Apr;47(4):377-380. 10.4111/kju.2006.47.4.377.

Efficacy of Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: Comparison with Standard Monopolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate

• Kim HG
• Lee BK
• Paick SH
• Lho YS

• KMID: 1997146
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2006.47.4.377

Abstract

PURPOSE
We wanted to assess the efficacy of bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compared with standard monopolar TURP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All 25 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who underwent TURP from July 2004 to June 2005 were retrospectively reviewed. Thirteen consecutive patients underwent standard monopolar TURP and 12 underwent bipolar TURP using the Gyrus PlasmaKinetic system.
RESULTS
The mean weight of resection was 29.7g for the bipolar TURP and 22.5g for the monopolar TURP. The operative time was shorter (82.5 vs 98.1 minutes, respectively), the estimated blood loss was less (252 vs 268cc, respectively) and the mean post-operative hospital stay was shorter (5.3 vs 5.7 days, respectively) in the bipolar TURP group. However, these differences were not statistically significant. The acute complications were significant hyponatremia in one patient and clot retention in one patient after monopolar TURP, but no complications occurred after bipolar TURP. The maximal flow rate increased from 6.4 to 14.7ml/sec in the bipolar TURP group, and it increased from 6.7 to 15.2ml/sec in the monopolar TURP group.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to monopolar TURP, bipolar TURP can be easily and safely used for treating symptomatic BPH with less morbidity.

Keyword

Bipolar disorder; Transurethral resection of prostate

MeSH Terms

Bipolar Disorder
Humans
Hyponatremia
Length of Stay
Operative Time
Prostate*
Prostatic Hyperplasia
Retrospective Studies
Transurethral Resection of Prostate

Reference

1. Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, Ewing LL. The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J Urol. 1984. 132:474–479.

2. Lowe FC. Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: sexual function. BJU Int. 2005. 95:12–18.

3. O'Leary MP. LUTS, ED, QOL: alphabet soup or real concerns to aging men? Urology. 2000. 56:5 Suppl 1. 7–11.

4. Clifford GM, Farmer RD. Medical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2000. 38:2–19.

5. Lepor H, Auerbach S, Puras-Baez A, Narayan P, Soloway M, Lowe F, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of terazosin in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 1992. 148:1467–1474.

6. Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cocken 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.

7. Bruskewitz RC, Larsen EH, Madsen PO, Dorflinger T. 3-year followup of urinary symptoms after transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol. 1986. 136:613–615.

8. Kim KW, Yang DY, Kim HY. The effect of irrigating fluid absorption on myocardial damage in TURP. Korean J Urol. 2003. 44:1269–1272.

9. 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.

10. Alschibaja M, May F, Treiber U, Paul R, Hartung R. Transurethral resection for benign prostatic hyperplasia. current developments. Urologe A. 2005. 44:499–504.

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

12. Jepsen JV, Bruskewitz RC. Recent developments in the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 1998. 51:23–31.

13. Blomqvist P, Ekbom A, Carlsson P, Ahlstrand C, Johansson JE. Benign prostatic hyperplasia in Sweden 1987 to 1994: changing patterns of treatment, changing patterns of costs. Urology. 1997. 50:214–219.

14. Schatzl G, Madersbacher S, Djavan B, Lang T, Marberger M. Two-year results of transurethral resection of the prostate versus four 'less invasive' treatment options. Eur Urol. 2000. 37:695–701.

15. Djavan B, Madersbacher S, Klingler HC, Ghawidel K, Basharkhah A, Hruby S, et al. Outcome analysis of minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Tech Urol. 1999. 5:12–20.

16. Han KS, Hong SJ, Chung BH. Changing trends in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia during recent 5 years. Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:458–462.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Wang DS, Bird VG, Leonard VY, Plumb SJ, Konety B, Williams RD, et al. Use of bipolar energy for transurethral resection of bladder tumors: pathologic considerations. J Endourol. 2004. 18:578–582.