Published: 2021-04-28

Bipolar TURP in high-risk patients with large prostate gland: our experience

Prince M. Wani, Mohammad S. Wani, Arif H. Bhat, Abdul R. Khawaja, Sajad A. Malik, Yaser A. Das, Sajad A. Para, Manzoor A. Dar


Background: The present gold standard monopolar-TURP is associated with a number of complications and has less safety margin in comorbid patients. Bipolar TURP is a modification of conventional M-TURP and has the potential to overcome its most prominent shortcomings with better safety profile in patients with comorbidities. Aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of bipolar-TURP in terms of operative and postoperative parameters.

Methods: This prospective study was conducted in the department of urology SKIMS Srinagar, from April-2019 to October 2020. Forty-five patients with one or more comorbidities and BHP, with a prostate weight ≥60 gm was evaluated. Operative and postoperative parameters were recorded and patients followed with IPSS and uroflowmetry for a period of 6-months.

Results: Of 45 patients who underwent B-TURP, pre-operative parameters were mean age(years) 66.59±9.88, mean prostate size (gm) 77.42±18.4, mean IPSS of 26.3±2.9, mean serum PSA (ng/dl) of 2.32±0.88, mean Qmax (ml/s)of 7.71±2.41 and PVRU of 113.45±16.5 ml. Operative and post-operative parameters were, mean operative time(min) of 68.14±29.6, TUR syndrome in none, mean change in Na+ of -0.98±0.75 meq/l, mean change in Hb of -1.66±0.68 g/dL, mean irrigation time (hours) 24.53±5.46, clot retention in 3 (6.66%) patients, transfusion in 2 (4.44%) patients, mean postoperative catheter time(hours) 69.5±10.5 and mean hospital stay 3.6±1.61 days. Two (4.44%) patients developed stricture urethra and were managed with urethral dilatation. IPSS and Qmax at 6-weeks were 10.2±2.18 and 16.22±2.31 ml and at 6-months were 6.43±1.16 and 19.12±3.14 ml respectively.

Conclusions: B-TURP seems to be a more sensible choice for patients with underlying comorbidities or implanted cardiac devices.


Large prostate, Bipolar-TURP, High-risk patients

Full Text:



Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Nakamura M, Nishimatsu H, Kume H et al. In-hospital outcomes and cost assessment between bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol. 2012;26:1053-8.

Reich O, Gratzke C, Stief CG. Techniques and long-term results of surgical procedures for BPH. Eur Urol. 2006;49:970-8.

Burke N, Whelan JP, Goeree L, Hopkins RB, Campbell K, Goeree R et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of transurethral resection of the prostate versus minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. Urology. 2010;75:1015-22.

Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) – Incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50:969-79.

Tao H, Jiang YY, Jun Q, Ding X, Jian DL, Jie D et al. Analysis of risk factors leading to postoperative urethral stricture and bladder neck contracture following transurethral resection of prostate. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42:302-11.

Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Seitz M, Schlenker B, Hermanek P et al. Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: A prospective multicentre evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol. 2008;180:246-9.

De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, Damiano R, Perdon S, Di Lorenzo G, Mordente S, D'Armiento M. Gyrus bipolar versus standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: A randomized prospective trial. Urology. 2006;67:69-72.

Souverein PC, Erkens JA, De la Rosette JJ. Drug treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and hospital admission for BPH-related surgery. Eur Urol. 2003;43:528-34.

Fritschi L, Tabrizi J, Leavy J, Ambrosini G, Timperio A. Risk factors for surgically treated benign prostatic hyperplasia in Western Australia. Public Health. 2007;121:781-9.

Oelke M, Baard J, Wijkstra H, De la Rosette JJ, Jonas U, Hofner K. Age and bladder outlet obstruction are independently associated with detrusor overactivity in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol. 2008;54:419-26.

Fagerström T, Nyman CR, Hahn RG. Bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate causes less bleeding than the monopolar technique: a single-centre Randomized trial of 202 patients. BJU Int. 2010;105:1560-4.

Mamoulakis C, Skolarikos A, Schulze M, Scoffone CM, Rassweiler JJ, Alivizatos G et al. Results from an international multicentre double-blind randomized controlled trial on the perioperative efficacy and safety of bipolar vs. monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate. BJU Int. 2012;109:240-8.

Er Yang J, Li H, Sun XB, Huang L, Wang L, Gong XX et al. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: safe in patients with high surgical risk. Scientific Rep. 2016;6:21494.

Omar MI, Lam TB, Alexander CE, Graham J, Mamoulakis C, Imamura M et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of bipolar compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). BJU Int. 2014;113:24-35.

Sinanoglu O, Ekici S, Can Balci MB, Hazar AI, Nuhoglu B. Comparison of Plasma kinetic Transurethral Resection of the Prostate with Monopolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Patients in terms of urethral stricture rates in patients With Comorbidities. Prostate Int. 2014;2(3):121-6.

Kong CH, Ibrahim MF, Zainuddin ZM. A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing bipolar plasma kinetic resection of the prostate versus conventional monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Ann Saudi Med. 2009;29:429-32.

Giulianelli R, Albanesi L, Attisani F, Gentile BC, Vincenti G, Pisanti F et al. Comparative randomized study on the efficaciousness of endoscopic bipolar prostate resection versus monopolar resection technique 3-year follow up. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2013;85:86 91.

Madduri VK, Bera MK, Pal DK. Monopolar versus bipolar transurethral resection of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: Operative outcomes and surgeon preferences, a real-world scenario. Urol Ann. 2016;8:291-6.

Srivastava A, Dhayal IR, Rai P. Management of Large Prostate Gland in Men with Impaired Renal Function: Comparison of Safety, Efficacy and Outcomes of Monopolar, Bipolar Transurethral Resection and Open Prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2016;96:413-20.

Lee YT, Ryu YW, Lee DM, Park SW, Yum SH, Han JH. Comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of conventional transurethral resection of the prostate, transurethral resection of the prostate in saline (TURIS), and TURIS-plasma vaporization for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A pilot study. Korean J Urol. 2011;52:763-8.

Lv L, Wang L, Fan M, Ju W, Pang Z, Zhu Z et al. Two-year outcome of high-risk benign prostate hyperplasia patients treated with transurethral prostate resection by plasma kinetic or conventional procedure. Urology. 2012;80:389-94.