Electrosurgical Enucleation Versus Bipolar Transurethral Resection for Prostates Larger than 70 ml: A Prospective, Randomized Trial with 5-Year Followup

Abstract

For large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia PlasmaKinetic enucleation of the prostate is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay and catheterization time than bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate. Moreover, PlasmaKinetic enucleation seems to be superior at long-term followup with fewer reoperations necessary.

Comparison of Fluid Absorption between Transurethral Enucleation and Transurethral Resection for Benign Prostate Hyperplasia

“…This may partly be due to devascularization of the stripped gland by TUPKEP, and improving removal efficiency, which was consistent with the results of Liu et al [1] and Zhu et al [9]. …”

“…No significant change of serum hemoglobin and sodium were seen between the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively, which was inconsistent with other studies [1,9]. The reason for this discrepancy is currently unclear but may be related to selection biases.…”

“…Therefore, it is necessary to assess the approximate absorption of the irrigation fluid for the patients' safety. Several studies have shown that TUERP is superior to TUPKRP in terms of less operative time, a greater drop in PSA level [7] or blood loss, and transient incontinence [8] or greater resected prostate weight, and shorter duration of catheterization and postoperative hospital stay [9]. However, all of the above studies had not mentioned the fluid absorption.…”

165 The Impact of Surgical Treatments for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia on Male Erectile Function: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

“…Eighteen RCTs with a total 2433 participants (mean age 67.53 years) finally met full inclusion criteria for current metaanalysis. [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Figure 1 showed the flowchart of literature searches and Table 1 provided characteristics of the included trials. These studies were conducted in 7 different countries located in Europe, North America, and Asia.…”

“…Group of decreased baseline IIEF-5 score covered all 9 surgical approaches with 15 articles. [36][37][38][39][40][41][43][44][45][46][47][48][50][51][52] As shown in Fig. 5 (B-E), patients who underwent TURP (P = 0.188, SMD = 0.06, 95% CI À0.03 to 0.15, I 2 = 32.7%, P = 0.084), PKRP (P = 0.545, SMD = 0.04, 95% CI À0.09 to 0.16, I 2 = 59.9%, P = 0.000), HoLRP (P = 0.682, SMD = 0.05, 95% CI À0.17 to 0.26, I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.956), Thulium laser (P = 0.093, SMD = 0.23, 95% CI À0.04 to 0.51, I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.709), OP (P = 0.220, SMD = 0.19, 95% CI À0.11 to 0.49, I 2 = 76.3%, P = 0.000), and LSP (P = 0.831, SMD = 0.02, 95% CI À0.18 to 0.23, I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.999) had no effect on EF, whereas patients who underwent HoLEP (P = 0.006, SMD = 0.39, 95% CI 0.11-0.66, I 2 = 60.6%, P = 0.038) and PKEP (P = 0.000, SMD = 0.29, 95% CI 0.19-0.39, I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.515) had an increased postoperative IIEF-5 score.…”