Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Bipolar versus monopolar TURP: a prospective controlled study at two urology centers

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 13, pages 285–291 (2010)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

We compared bipolar and monopolar TURP in a prospective controlled study at two urology centers. The objective of the study was to establish whether there were differences between the two methods with regard to frequency of the transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome, amount of fluid absorbed during surgery, risk of hemorrhage, duration of postoperative catheterization and duration of hospitalization. The duration of surgery, improvement in maximum flow rate (Q-max), residual urine volume, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QoL) score were also compared. Overall, our study showed that there were no major differences between bipolar and monopolar TURP. During follow-up, the clinical efficacy of bipolar TURP has been maintained to the same degree as with the traditional method, with no significant differences for Q-max, IPSS and QoL scores after 1 year. Although the risk of developing TUR syndrome seemed to be smaller with bipolar resection (serum sodium change bipolar versus monopolar: +1.2 versus −0.1 mmol l−1), the bleeding tendency with both methods was the same (14.0 g l−1 hemoglobin loss after 1 day in both groups). On the basis of our findings, we think that the monopolar technique has still a place in TURP.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Iori F, Franco G, Leonardo C, Laurenti C, Tubaro A, D’Amico F et al. Bipolar transurethral resection of prostate: clinical and urodynamic evaluation. Urology 2008; 71: 252–255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Stock C, Teber D, De La Rosette J . Bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate--technical modifications and early clinical experience. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2007; 16: 11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R . Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)—incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 969–979; discussion 980.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC . Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3885 patients. J Urol 1989; 141: 243–247.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel A, Adshead JM . First clinical experience with new transurethral bipolar prostate electrosurgery resection system: controlled tissue ablation (coblation technology). J Endourol 2004; 18: 959–964.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dincel C, Samli MM, Guler C, Demirbas M, Karalar M . Plasma kinetic vaporization of the prostate: clinical evaluation of a new technique. J Endourol 2004; 18: 293–298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, Damiano R, Perdona S, di Lorenzo G et al. Gyrus bipolar versus standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Urology 2006; 67: 69–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang S, Lin WC, Chang HK, Hsu JM, Lin WR, Chow YC et al. Gyrus plasmasect: is it better than monopolar transurethral resection of prostate? Urol Int 2004; 73: 258–261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ho HS, Yip SK, Lim KB, Fook S, Foo KT, Cheng CW . A prospective randomized study comparing monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of prostate using transurethral resection in saline (TURIS) system. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 517–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Seckiner I, Yesilli C, Akduman B, Altan K, Mungan NA . A prospective randomized study for comparing bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate with standard TURP. Urol Int 2006; 76: 139–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hon NH, Brathwaite D, Hussain Z, Ghiblawi S, Brace H, Hayne D et al. A prospective, randomized trial comparing conventional transurethral prostate resection with plasmakinetic vaporization of the prostate: physiological changes, early complications and long-term follow up. J Urol 2006; 176: 205–209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bishop P . Bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate--a new approach. AORN J 2003; 77: 979–983.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yoon CJ, Kim JY, Moon KH, Jung HC, Park TC . Transurethral resection of the prostate with a bipolar tissue management system compared to conventional monopolar resectoscope: one-year outcome. Yonsei Med J 2006; 47: 715–720.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Madersbacher S, Alivizatos G, Nordling J, Sanz CR, Emberton M, de la Rosette JJ . EAU 2004 guidelines on assessment, therapy and follow-up of men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPH guidelines). Eur Urol 2004; 46: 547–554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ho H, Yip SK, Cheng CW, Foo KT . Bipolar transurethral resection of prostate in saline: preliminary report on clinical efficacy and safety at 1 year. J Endourol 2006; 20: 244–246; discussion 246-247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yoshimura R, Adachi T, Funao K, Kobayakawa H, Matsuyama M, Tsuchida K et al. Treatment of bladder tumors and benign prostatic hyperplasia with a new TUR system using physiological saline as perfusate. World J Surg 2006; 30: 473–477.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shiozawa H, Aizawa T, Ito T, Miki M . A new transurethral resection system: operating in saline environment precludes obturator nerve reflexes. J Urol 2002; 168: 2665–2667.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fung BT, Li SK, Yu CF, Lau BE, Hou SS . Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing plasmakinetic vaporesection and conventional transurethral resection of the prostate. Asian J Surg 2005; 28: 24–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Issa MM . Technological advances in transurethral resection of the prostate: bipolar versus monopolar TURP. J Endourol 2008; 22: 1587–1595.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mamoulakis C, Ubbink DT, de la Rosette JJMCH . Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 798–809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Patankar S, Jamkar A, Dobhada S, Gorde V . PlasmaKinetic Superpulse transurethral resection versus conventional transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol 2006; 20: 215–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Erturhan S, Erbagci A, Seckiner I, Yagci F, Ustun A . Plasmakinetic resection of the prostate versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized trial with 1-year follow up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2007; 10: 97–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors like to thank Alistair Reeves for translating the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, St Gallen Cantonal Hospital, St Gallen, Switzerland

    D S Engeler, C Schwab, T Grün & H-P Schmid

  2. Department of Urology, Bregenz State Hospital, Bregenz, Austria

    M Neyer & A Reissigl

Authors
  1. D S Engeler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C Schwab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M Neyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T Grün
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A Reissigl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H-P Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D S Engeler.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Engeler, D., Schwab, C., Neyer, M. et al. Bipolar versus monopolar TURP: a prospective controlled study at two urology centers. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13, 285–291 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2010.1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2010.1

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links