Five-Year Follow-Up Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Bipolar Plasmakinetic and Monopolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate.
10.3349/ymj.2012.53.4.734
- Author:
Chang Ying XIE
1
;
Guang Bin ZHU
;
Xing Huan WANG
;
Xiang Bin LIU
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. urologistwxh@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords:
Randomized controlled trial;
bipolar plasmakinetic;
transurethral resection of the prostate;
follow-up
- MeSH:
Aged;
Aged, 80 and over;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Prostate/*surgery;
Transurethral Resection of Prostate/adverse effects/*methods;
Treatment Outcome
- From:Yonsei Medical Journal
2012;53(4):734-741
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To report the 5-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial comparing bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with standard monopolar TURP for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 220 patients were randomized to bipolar plasmakinetic TURP (PK-TURP) or monopolar TURP (M-TURP). Catheterization time was the primary endpoint of this study. Secondary outcomes included operation time, hospital stay, as well as decline in postoperative serum sodium and hemoglobin levels. All patients were assessed preoperatively and followed-up at 1, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months postoperatively. Parameters assessed included quality of life, transrectal ultrasound, serum prostate-specific antigen level, postvoid residual urine volume, maximum urinary flow rates (Qmax), and International Prostate Symptom Score. Patient baseline characteristics, perioperative data including complications, and postoperative outcomes were compared. Complication occurrence was graded according to the modified Clavien classification system. RESULTS: PK-TURP was significantly superior to M-TURP in terms of operation time, intraoperative irrigation volume, resected tissue weight, decreases in hemoglobin and sodium, postoperative irrigation volume and time, catheterization time, and hospital stay. At 5 years postoperatively, efficacy was comparable between arms. No differences were detected in safety outcomes except that the clot retention rate was significantly greater after M-TURP. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that PK-TURP is equally as effective in the treatment of BPO, but has a more favorable safety profile in comparison to M-TURP. The clinical efficacy of PK-TURP is long-lasting and comparable with M-TURP.
