bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of prostate (turp), advantages and disadvantages in a 6-month follow-up

Background: we compared bipolar turp with current monopolar turp for safety and efficacy in 6 months follow-up. methods: a total of 94 patients with luts (lower urinary tract symptom) related to bph (benign prostatic hyperplasia) were included. they were randomized into group b, who underwent bipolar turp (47 patients), and group m, who underwent monopolar turp (47 patients). preoperatively, by using ipss (international prostate symptom scale) and iief-5 (international index of erectile function-5) questionnaires severity of luts and erectile function were assessed. all patients were submitted to transrectal ultrasonography and psa determination. surgical and immediately postsurgical variables and accidents were charted; all cases were re-assessed at three and six months after surgery by use of ipss and iief-5 (international index of erectile function-5) questionnaires. urethral stricture incidence, post-surgical reoperation rate, total postoperative catheter time and hospital stay, change in serum sodium, and hemoglobin were also recorded in two groups. results: there was no distinct difference between two groups in regards to blood transfusion necessity. the level of serum na was clearly lower in the monopolar group postoperatively. catheterization time and duration of hospitalization were clearly shorter in the b-group; transurethral resection syndrome did not happen in any cases of the groups. the groups were corresponded about ipss improvement. changes in erectile function, regarding iief-5 scores, were similar between the groups. conclusions: bipolar turp is an impressive and secure technique that is correlated with a distinctly shorter catheterization time, shorter hospital stay, less decrement in the levels of serum sodium, and is correspondent with monopolar turp in regards to efficacy by attention to ipss iief-5 scores.