CONTEXT: Incorporation of bipolar technology in transurethral resection (TUR) of the prostate (TURP) potentially offers advantages over monopolar TURP (M-TURP). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence by a meta-analysis, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bipolar TURP (B-TURP) with M-TURP for benign prostatic obstruction. Primary end points included efficacy (maximum flow rate [Q(max)], International Prostate Symptom Score) and safety (adverse events). Secondary end points included operation time and duration of irrigation, catheterization, and hospitalization. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Based on a detailed, unrestricted strategy, the literature was searched up to February 19, 2009, using Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library to detect all relevant RCTs. Methodological quality assessment of the trials was based on the Dutch Cochrane Collaboration checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Sixteen RCTs (1406 patients) were included. Overall trial quality was low (eg, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors were poorly reported). No clinically relevant differences in short-term (12-mo) efficacy were detected (Q(max): weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.72 ml/s; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-1.35; p=0.03). Data on follow-up of >12 mo are scarce for B-TURP, precluding long-term efficacy evaluation. Treating 50 patients (95% CI, 33-111) and 20 patients (95% CI, 10-100) with B-TURP results in one fewer case of TUR syndrome (risk difference [RD]: 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.9-3.0%; p=0.01) and one fewer case of clot retention (RD: 5.0%; 95% CI, 1.0-10%; p=0.03), respectively. Operation times, transfusion rates, retention rates after catheter removal, and urethral complications did not differ significantly. Irrigation and catheterization duration was significantly longer with M-TURP (WMD: 8.75 h; 95% CI, 6.8-10.7 and WMD: 21.77 h; 95% CI, 19.22-24.32; p<0.00001, respectively). Inferences for hospitalization duration could not be made. PlasmaKinetic TURP showed an improved safety profile. Data on TUR in saline (TURis) are not yet mature to permit safe conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically relevant differences in short-term efficacy exist between the two techniques, but B-TURP is preferable due to a more favorable safety profile (lower TUR syndrome and clot retention rates) and shorter irrigation and catheterization duration. Well-designed multicentric/international RCTs with long-term follow-up and cost analysis are still needed.
CONTEXT: Incorporation of bipolar technology in transurethral resection (TUR) of the prostate (TURP) potentially offers advantages over monopolar TURP (M-TURP). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence by a meta-analysis, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bipolar TURP (B-TURP) with M-TURP for benign prostatic obstruction. Primary end points included efficacy (maximum flow rate [Q(max)], International Prostate Symptom Score) and safety (adverse events). Secondary end points included operation time and duration of irrigation, catheterization, and hospitalization. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Based on a detailed, unrestricted strategy, the literature was searched up to February 19, 2009, using Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library to detect all relevant RCTs. Methodological quality assessment of the trials was based on the Dutch Cochrane Collaboration checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Sixteen RCTs (1406 patients) were included. Overall trial quality was low (eg, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors were poorly reported). No clinically relevant differences in short-term (12-mo) efficacy were detected (Q(max): weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.72 ml/s; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-1.35; p=0.03). Data on follow-up of >12 mo are scarce for B-TURP, precluding long-term efficacy evaluation. Treating 50 patients (95% CI, 33-111) and 20 patients (95% CI, 10-100) with B-TURP results in one fewer case of TUR syndrome (risk difference [RD]: 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.9-3.0%; p=0.01) and one fewer case of clot retention (RD: 5.0%; 95% CI, 1.0-10%; p=0.03), respectively. Operation times, transfusion rates, retention rates after catheter removal, and urethral complications did not differ significantly. Irrigation and catheterization duration was significantly longer with M-TURP (WMD: 8.75 h; 95% CI, 6.8-10.7 and WMD: 21.77 h; 95% CI, 19.22-24.32; p<0.00001, respectively). Inferences for hospitalization duration could not be made. PlasmaKinetic TURP showed an improved safety profile. Data on TUR in saline (TURis) are not yet mature to permit safe conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically relevant differences in short-term efficacy exist between the two techniques, but B-TURP is preferable due to a more favorable safety profile (lower TUR syndrome and clot retention rates) and shorter irrigation and catheterization duration. Well-designed multicentric/international RCTs with long-term follow-up and cost analysis are still needed.
Authors: T Bschleipfer; T Bach; R Berges; K Dreikorn; C Gratzke; S Madersbacher; M-S Michel; R Muschter; M Oelke; O Reich; C Tschuschke; K Höfner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Cosimo De Nunzio; Riccardo Lombardo; Riccardo Autorino; Antonio Cicione; Luca Cindolo; Rocco Damiano; Marco De Sio; Mario Falsaperla; Giorgio Franco; Mauro Gacci; Costantino Leonardo; Fabrizio Presicce; Andrea Tubaro Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Samer Fathi Al-Rawashdah; Antonio Luigi Pastore; Yazan Al Salhi; Andrea Fuschi; Vincenzo Petrozza; Angela Maurizi; Ester Illiano; Elisabetta Costantini; Giovanni Palleschi; Antonio Carbone Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 4.226