Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of bipolar endoscopic enucleation of prostate with transurethral resection in saline for large BPE greater than 70 g.
Methods
All patients from two urology centres who had bipolar enucleation or bipolar resection performed for large BPE greater than 70 g from December 2008 to April 2012 were prospectively assessed. The pre-operative and post-operative measures included IPSS, QOL score, uroflowmetry results, PSA and prostate volume. The perioperative measures were compared, and the post-operative complications/resumption of medical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also assessed.
Results
There were 74 and 86 consecutive patients with bipolar enucleation and bipolar resection performed, respectively. No difference in pre-operative characteristics was observed between the two groups with mean prostate size 115 cc in each group. Comparing bipolar enucleation with bipolar resection, there was longer operative time (156 vs 87 min, p = 0.000), more haemoglobin drop (1.8 vs 1.1 g/dL, p = 0.006), but more prostate tissue resected (61.4 vs 45.7 g, p = 0.000). There was no difference in overall transfusion requirement and hospital stay. At 12 month after the procedure, patients with bipolar enucleation performed had better IPSS (6.4 vs 11.6, p = 0.032), QOL (1.7 vs 2.6, p = 0.040) and peak flow rate (19.5 vs 15.1 ml/s, p = 0.019). The post-operative complications had no significant difference between the two groups.
Conclusions
For surgical treatment of big BPE, bipolar endoscopic enucleation of prostate provided superior functional outcome than bipolar resection but required longer operative time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC (1989) Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J Urol 141(2):243–247
Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazaud A, Emberton M, Gravas S, Michel MC, N’Dow J, Nordling J, de la Rosette JJ (2013) Guidelines on management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO). Uroweb 2013. Available at: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/13_Male_LUTS_LR.pdf
Kuntz RM, Lehrich K (2002) Transurethral holmium laser enucleation versus transvesical open enucleation for prostate adenoma greater than 100 g: a randomized prospective trial of 120 patients. J Urol 168(4 Pt 1):1465–1469
Mamoulakis C, Ubbink DT, de la Rosette JJ (2009) Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Urol 56:798–809
Mayer EK, Kroeze SG, Chopra S, Bottle A, Patel A (2012) Examining the ‘Gold standard’: a comparative of three consecutive decades of monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) outcomes. BJU Int 110(11):1595–1601. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11119.x
Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, Kuntz RM, Madersbacher S, Montorsi F, Stief CG (2012) Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 58:384–397. doi:1-.1016/j.eurouro.2010.06.005
Neill MG, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, Frampton CM, Westernberg AM, Fraundorfer MR, Wilson LC (2006) Randomized trial comparing Holmium laser enucleation of prostate with plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 68(5):1020–1024
Liu C, Zheng S, Li H, Xu K (2010) Transurethral enucleation and resection of prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia by plasma kinetics. J Urol 184:2440–2445. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.037
Zhao Z, Zeng G, Zhong W, Mai Z, Zeng S, Tao X (2012) A prospective, randomised trial comparing plasmakinetic enucleation to standard transurethral resection of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: three-year follow-up results. Eur Urol 58:752–758. doi:10.1016/j.eurouro.2010.08.026
Hirasawa Y, Ide H, Yasumizu Y, Hoshino K, Ito Y, Masuda T (2012) Comparison of transurethral enucleation with bipolar and transurethral resection in saline for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJUI 110(11 Pt C):E864–E869. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11381.x
Tefekli A, Muslumanoglu AY, Baykal M, Binbay M, Tas A, Altunrende F (2005) A hybrid technique using bipolar technology in transurethral prostate surgery: a prospective, randomized comparison. J Urol 174(4 Pt 1):1339–1343
De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, Damiano R, Perdona S, di Lorenzo G, Mordente S, D’Armiento M (2006) Gyrus bipolar versus standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Urology 67:69–72
Akman T, Binbay M, Tekinarslan E, Tepeler A, Akcay M, Ugurlu M, Muslumanoglu A (2012) Effects of bipolar and monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate on urinary and erectile function: a prospective randomized comparative study. BUJI 111:129–136. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11266.x
Xiong W, Sun M, Ran Q, Chen F, Du Y, Dou K (2013) Learning curve for bipolar transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate in saline for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: experience in the first 100 consecutive patients. Urol Int 90:68–74. doi:10.1159/000343235
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kan, C.F., Tsu, H.L., Chiu, Y. et al. A prospective study comparing bipolar endoscopic enucleation of prostate with bipolar transurethral resection in saline for management of symptomatic benign prostate enlargement larger than 70 g in a matched cohort. Int Urol Nephrol 46, 511–517 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0546-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0546-4