Journal List > Korean J Urol > v.47(4) > 1069869

TOOLS
Kim, Lee, Paick, and Lho: Efficacy of Bipolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: Comparison with Standard Monopolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate
Original Article
Korean Journal of Urology

Korean Journal of Urology 2006; 47(4): 377-380.

Published online: 30 April 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2006.47.4.377

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

Hyeong Gon Kim, Byung Ki Lee, Sung Hyun Paick, Yong Soo Lho

Department of Urology, Konkuk University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding author (yslho@kuh.ac.kr)

Received 30 August 2005       Accepted 2 November 2005

Copyright © 2006 The Korean Urological Association

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.

Keywords: Bipolar disorder, Transurethral resection of prostate

Figures and Tables

Table 1
Characteristics of the patients before the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)
kju-47-377-i001

IPSS: International Prostatic Symptom Score, QoL: quality of life; QoL score in IPSS, Qmax: maximal flow rate. All values presented are average±standard deviation.

Table 2
Results of bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compared with monopolar TURP
kju-47-377-i002

Qmax: maximal flow rate. All values presented are average±standard deviation.

References

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.
TOOLS
Similar articles