Mushtaq Ahmad, Hazratullah Khan, Amin ullah, Iqra Masood, Warda Masood, Asif Malik


Background: In recent years, bipolar Transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) has been
increasingly being used by urologist instead of conventional monopolar TURP for the treatment of
enlarge prostate. Bipolar TURP is considered to be more efficacious and has better clinical outcome in comparison with monopolar TURP. We compared both procedures to assess their clinical
out-comes and efficacy by comparing their different parameters. Methods: This randomized
control trial was conducted in the Institute of Kidney Diseases and Transplant Peshawar over 220
consecutive patients from Sep 2013 to Dec 2014. Patients were randomly divided in two groups.
Maximum flow rate (Q max), duration of resection, weight of tissue resected, TUR syndrome,
blood transfusion and duration of hospital stay and catheterization were compared in both groups.
Results: There were 110 patients in both groups each. Post-operative Q max, duration of
resection, weight of tissue resected, duration of hospital stay, duration of catheterization was
statistically insignificant. While statistically significant difference was found only the duration of
procedure. Conclusion: Bipolar and monopolar have the same clinical out-come and complication
rates, yet the monopolar TURP requires significantly less operating time in comparison to bipolar
TURP efficacy. Both procedures can be used for the treatment equally however if urologist want
to save the time he should use monopolar TURP.
Keywords: Monopolar TURP; Bipolar TURP; Enlarge Prostate

Full Text:



Chute CG, Panser LA, Girman CJ, Oesterling JE, Guess HA, Jacobsen SJ, et al. The prevalence of prostatism: a population-based survey of urinary symptoms. J Urol 1993;150(1):85–9.

Dhingra N, Bhagwat D. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: An overview of existing treatment. Indian J Pharmacol 2011;43(1):6–12.

Shrivastava A, Gupta VB. Various treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia: A current update. J Midlife Health 2012;3(1):10–9.

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(1):69–71.

de Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, Damiano R, Perdonà S, di Lorenzo G, et al. Gyrus bipolar versus standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial. Urology 2006;67(1):69–72.

Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC. Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J Urol 1989;141(2):243–7.

Xie CY, Zhu GB, Wang XH, Liu XB. Five-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial comparing bipolar plasmakinetic and monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate. Yonsei Med J 2012;53(4):734–41.

Engeler DS, Schwab C, Neyer M, Grün T, Reissigl A, Schmid HP. Bipolar versus Monopolar TURP: A prospective controlled study at two urology centers. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010;13(3):285–91.

Kolmert T, Norlen H. Transurethral resection of the prostate. A review of 1111 cases. Int Urol Nephrol 1989;21(1):47–55.

Koshiba K, Egawa S, Ohori M, Uchida T, Yokoyama E, Shoji K. Does transurethral resection of the prostate pose a risk to life? 22-year outcome. J Urol 1995;153(5):1506–9.

Botto H, Lebret T, Barre P, Orsoni JL, Herve JM, Lugagne PM. Electrovaporization of the prostate with the Gyrus device. J Endourol 2001;15(3):313–6.

Eaton AC, Francis RN. The provision of transurethral prostatectomy on a day-case basis using bipolar plasma kinetic technology. BJU Int 2002;89(6):534–7.

Wendt-Nordahl G, Hacker A, Reich O, Djavan B, Alken P, Michel MS. The Vista system: a new bipolar resection device for endourological procedures: comparison with conventional resectoscope. Eur Urol 2004;46(5):586–90.

Hartung R. Transurethral prostatectomy (TURP): still the gold standard? J Urol (Paris) 1995;101(1):18–2

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(5):715–20.

Singh H, Desai MR, Shrivastav P, Vani K. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of prostate: randomized controlled study. J Endourol 2005;19(3):333–8.

Michielsen DP, Coomans D, Van Lersberghe C, Braeckman JG. Comparison of the haemostatic properties of conventional monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate in patients on oral anticoagulant. Arch Med Sci 2011;7(5):858–63.

Mendez-Probst EC, Nott L, Pautler SE, Razi H. A multicenter single-blind controlled trial comparing bipolar and monopolar transurethral resection of prostate. Can Urol Assoc J 2011;5(6):385–9.

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(4 Pt 1):1339–43.

Fagerstrom T, Nyman CR, Hahn RG. Complications and clinical outcome 18 months after bipolar and monopolar transurethral resection of prostate. J Endourol 2011;25(6):1043–9.

Michielsen DP, Debacker T, De Boe V, Lersberghe C, Kaufman L, Braeckman JG, et al. Bipolar transurethral resection in saline an alternatie surgical treatment for bladder outlet obstruction? J Urol 2007;178(5):2035–9.

Dunsmuir WD, McFarlane JP, Tan A, Dowling C, Downie J, Kourambas J, et al. Gyrus bipolar electrovaporization vs transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective single-blind trial with 1 y follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2003;6(2):182–6.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Contact Number: +92-992-382571

email: [jamc] [@] []