Introduction: Although transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) remains the reference standard for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), the concern about complications promotes researchers to develop alternative surgical methods with fewer complications. In this study, we compared the safety and efficacy between the transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of prostate (TUPKEP) and transurethral plasma kinetic resection of prostate (TUPKRP), mainly including absorption of irrigation fluid, the operation time, the weight of prostate tissue removed and severe complications. Methods: Sixty BPH patients were randomly and evenly assigned to the TUPKEP or TUPKRP group. The irrigation fluid used in both groups was 1% ethanol-containing saline solution. The ethanol concentrations in the subjects' end expiration were measured during operation. The volume of irrigation fluid absorbed was calculated accordingly. Results: No significant difference was found in operation time between two groups, whereas the weight of prostate tissue resection was significantly higher in the TUPKEP than that in the TUPKRP group. Conclusion: The study provides evidence for the safety, feasibility and effectiveness of both bipolar transurethral techniques. Further, compared to the TUPKRP group, the TUPKEP group has more efficient for resection of prostatic hyperplasia tissue, even though in terms of fluid absorption, no difference has been found in both groups. Ethanol monitoring is simple, safe and effective, which is beneficial for enhancing safety procedures.

Keywords:
Benign prostate hyperplasia, Fluid absorption, Transurethral plasma kinetic resection of prostate, Transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of prostate
1.
Liu C, Zheng Sh, Li Hu, et al: Transurethral enucleation and resection of prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia by plasma kinetics. J Urol 2010;184:2440-2445.
2.
Zhang K, Xing J, Chen B, et al: Bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of the prostate vs transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate: pre- and postoperative comparisons of parameters used in assessing benign prostatic enlargement. Singapore Med J 2011;52:747-751.
3.
Zhao Z, Zeng G, Zhong W, et al: A prospective, randomised trial comparing plasmakinetic enucleation to standard transurethral resection of the prostate for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: three-year follow-up results. Eur Urol 2010;58:752-758.
4.
Hahn RG: Ethanol monitoring of irrigating fluid absorption in transurethral prostatic surgery. Anaesthesiology 1988;68:867-873.
5.
Hahn RG: Fluid and electrolyte dynamics during development of the TURP syndrome. Br J Urol 1990;66:79-84.
6.
Madersbacher S, Marberger M: Is transurethral resection of the prostate still justified? BJU Int 1999;83:227-237.
7.
Zhang KY, Xing JC, Chen BS, et al: Bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of the prostate vs. transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate: pre- and postoperative comparisons of parameters used in assessing benign prostatic enlargement. Singapore Med J 2011;52:747-751.
8.
Naikai L, Jianjun YA: Study comparing plasmakinetic enucleation to bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Endourol 2012;26:884-888.
9.
Zhu L, Chen S, Yang S, et al: Plasmakinetic enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate for prostates larger than 70 ml: a prospective, randomised trial with 5-year follow-up. J Urol 2012;10:117.
10.
Hahn RG: Early detection of the TUR syndrome by marking the irrigating fluid with 1% ethanol. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1989;33:146-151.
11.
Cetinkaya M, Ulusoy E, OÈztuÈrk B, et al: Transurethral resection or electrovaporization in the treatment of BPH. Br J Urol 1998;81:652-654.
12.
Chen SS, Chiu AW, Lin ATL, et al: Clinical outcome at 3 months after transurethral vaporization of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 1997;50:235-238.
13.
Akçayöz M, Kaygisiz O, Akdemir O, et al: Comparison of transurethral resection and plasmakinetic transurethral resection applications with regard to fluid absorption amounts in benign prostate hyperplasia. Urol Int 2000;77:143-147.
14.
Cetinkaya M, Oztürk B, Akdemir, et al: A comparison of fluid absorption during transurethral resection and transurethral vaporization for benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 2000;86:820-823.
15.
Konrad C, Gerber HR, Schuepfer G, et al: Transurethral resection syndrome: effect of the introduction into clinical practice of a new method for monitoring fluid absorption. J Clin Anesth 1998;10:360-365.
16.
Hahn RG, Ekengren JC: Patterns of irrigating fluid absorption during transurethral resection of the prostate as indicated by ethanol. J Urol 1993;149:502-506.
17.
Hahn RG: Prevention of TUR syndrome by detection of trace ethanol in the expired breath. Anaesthesia 1990;45:577-581.
18.
Hahn RG: Ethanol monitoring of extravascular absorption of irrigating fluid. Br J Urol 1993;72:766-769.
19.
Hahn RG: Life-threatening transurethral resection syndrome despite monitoring of fluid absorption with ethanol. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1995;12:431-433.
20.
Hahn RG: The use of ethanol to monitor fluid absorption during transurethral resection of the prostate. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1999;33:277-283.
21.
Oester A, Madsen PO: Determination of absorption of irrigating fluid during transurethral resection of the prostate by means of radioisotopes. J Urol 1969;102:714-719.
22.
Hahn RG: Calculation of irrigant absorption by measurement of breath alcohol level during transurethral resection of the prostate. Br J Urol 1991;68:390-393.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.