A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Bipolar Plasmakinetic Transurethral Resection of the Prostate and Monopolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Efficacy, Sexual Function, Quality of Life, and Complications

Abstract

Objective: To generate high-quality data comparing the clinical efficacy and safety profile between monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP) and bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PK-TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized, single-blinded study conducted in a tertiary-care public institution (Dec/2014-Aug/2016). Inclusion criteria: prostate of <80g in patients with drug-refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), complications derived from BPH, or both. Exclusion criteria: a history of pelvic surgery/radiotherapy, neurogenic bladder dysfunction or documented/suspected prostate carcinoma. Treatment efficacy evaluated at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Efficacy outcomes: international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QoL) score, international index of erectile function-5 (IIEF-5), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine (PVRU) volume, and prostate volume (PV). Complications and sequelae also assessed. Comparisons performed with parametric/non-parametric tests.Results: Out of the 100 hundred patients, 84 qualified for the analysis (45 M-TURP/39 PK-TURP). No significant differences found in baseline characteristics or operative data, except for a longer operative time in PK-TURP (MD:7.9min; 95%CI:0.13-15.74; p=0.04). No differences found in IPSS, Qmax or PVRU volume. QoL score at 12 months was higher in PK-TURP (MD:0,9points; 95%CI:0.18-1.64; p=0.01). No differences in sexual function, PV, complications or sequelae were found. This study is “rigorous” (Jadad- scale) and has a low risk of bias (Cochrane-Handbook).Conclusions: Based on this controlled trial, there is not significant variation in effectiveness and safety between M-TURP and PK-TURP for the treatment of BPH. The small difference in QoL between PK-TURP and M-TURP at the one-year follow-up is not perceivable by the patients and, therefore, not clinically relevant.