Purpose:   Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) is widely considered to be the gold‐standard treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH). More recently, bipolar diathermy TURP has been used in preference to monopolar diathermy due to various technical benefits. This retrospective audit has been conducted to determine whether this technique has had any discernable effects on regional centres. Methodology:   All monopolar and bipolar TURP charts within a six month period were reviewed and consecutive cases of each were analysed to obtain the objective data presented. All TURPs were performed by the same consultant surgeon in the same hospital. The parameters to be defined were: Patient age, operation duration, duration of catheterisation post‐operatively, length of stay, weight of prostatic resection + histology and complications. Results:   21 consecutive monopolar TURP cases and 22 consecutive bipolar TURP cases were reviewed and the data collated. It was observed that bipolar TURP had advantages including a reduced length of stay (1.3 days vs. 2.4 days) and a reduced post operative catheterisation period (1.3 days vs. 2.1 days). Other parameters remained comparable and no difference was noted in complication rates. Conclusion:   Within the limitations of a retrospective audit, the above data can be said to demonstrate significant benefits for bipolar diathermy in TURP procedures in a rural setting. Long term cost benefits could be inferred, given reduced lengths of stay for individual patients. The authors would recommend regional hospitals conducting TURPs to consider a transition to the bipolar TURP system if possible, given that complication rates were unchanged.