Objective: The purpose of the study was to compare the safety, efficacy and outcome of monopolar transurethral resection of prostate (M-TURP), bipolar transurethral resection of prostate (BP-TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP) exclusively involving large prostate glands in men with renal impairment. Methods: Data of patients with gland size >90 g and serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dl, who were managed surgically at our institution from April 2009 to March 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) scores, PVR, serum creatinine and Q-max were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively at each follow-up visit. Follow-up was performed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results: M-TURP, BP-TURP and OP were the 3 types of surgeries performed. Preoperative characters were similar in all the groups. Hemoglobin drop, transfusion rates, irrigation time, catheter time and hospital days were significantly more in the OP group. Changes in sodium levels and incidence of transurethral syndrome were found to be more in the monopolar group. The follow-up data indicate a significant improvement in the IPSS, QoL, PVR and Q-max in all the groups. Conclusion: This category of patients can be managed safely and efficiently by all the 3 procedures, although BP-TURP has an advantage in terms of shorter catheterization, hospitalization and fewer complications like transurethral resection syndrome.

Keywords:
Elderly, Outcome, Charlson comorbidity index, Large prostate, Renal failure
1.
Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, Ewing LL: The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J Urol 1984;132:474-479.
2.
Rule AD, Jacobson DJ, Roberts RO, et al: The association between benign prostatic hyperplasia and chronic kidney disease in community-dwelling men. Kidney Int 2005;67:2376-2382.
3.
Melchior J, Valk WL, Foret JD, Mebust WK: Transurethral prostatectomy in the azotemic patient. J Urol 1974;112:643-646.
4.
Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC: Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J Urol 1989;141:243-247.
5.
Lindeman RD, Tobin J, Shock NW: Longitudinal studies on the rate of decline in renal function with age. J Am Geriatr Soc 1985;33:278-285.
6.
Anderson S, Halter JB, Hazzard WR, et al: Prediction, progression, and outcomes of chronic kidney disease in older adults. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;20:1199-1209.
7.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373-383.
8.
Guzzo TJ, Dluzniewski P, Orosco R, et al: Prediction of mortality after radical prostatectomy by Charlson comorbidity index. Urology 2010;76:553-557.
9.
O'Connor KM, Davis N, Lennon GM, et al: Can we avoid surgery in elderly patients with renal masses by using the Charlson comorbidity index? BJU Int 2009;103:1492-1495.
10.
Resorlu B, Diri A, Atmaca AF, et al: Can we avoid percutaneous nephrolithotomy in high-risk elderly patients using the Charlson comorbidity index? Urology 2012;79:1042-1047.
11.
Hahn RG: Fluid absorption in endoscopic surgery. Br J Anaesth 2006;96:8-20.
12.
McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, et al: Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2011;185:1793-1803.
13.
Gu X, Vricella GJ, Spaliviero M, Wong C: Does size really matter? The impact of prostate volume on the efficacy and safety of GreenLight HPS™ laser photoselective vaporization of the prostate. J Endourol 2012;26:525-530.
14.
Elmansy H, Baazeem A, Kotb A, Badawy H, Riad E, Emran A, et al: Holmium laser enucleation versus photoselective vaporization for prostatic adenoma greater than 60 ml: preliminary results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Urol 2012;188:216-221.
15.
Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Sodha HS, Hegde S, Mohile PD, Bansal MB: Prospective evaluation of the learning curve for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. J Urol 2007;177:1468-1474.
16.
Chen YB, Chen Q, Wang Z, et al: A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing plasmakinetic resection of the prostate with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate based on a 2-year followup. J Urol 2013;189:217-222.
17.
Gravas S, Bachmann A, Reich O, Roehrborn CG, Gilling PJ, De La Rosette J: Critical review of lasers in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). BJU Int 2011;107:1030-1043.
18.
Gupta NP, Anand A: Lasers are superfluous for the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the developing world. Indian J Urol 2009;25:413-414.
19.
Nakahira J, Sawai T, Fujiwara A, Minami T: Transurethral resection syndrome in elderly patients: a retrospective observational study. BMC Anesthesiol 2014;14:30.
20.
Bhansali M, Patankar S, Dobhada S, Khaladkar S: Management of large (>60 g) prostate gland: plasma Kinetic superpulse (bipolar) versus conventional (monopolar) transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol 2009;23:141-145.
21.
Kwon JS, Lee JW, Lee SW, Choi HY, Moon HS: Comparison of effectiveness of monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate and open prostatectomy in large benign prostatic hyperplasia. Korean J Urol 2011;52:269-273.
22.
Zhu G, Xie C, Wang X, et al: Bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of prostate in 132 consecutive patients with large gland: three-year follow-up results. Urology 2012;79:397-402.
23.
Geavlete B, Bulai C, Ene C, et al: Bipolar vaporization, resection, and enucleation versus open prostatectomy: optimal treatment alternatives in large prostate case? J Endourol 2015;29:323-331.
24.
Coskuner ER, Ozkan TA, Koprulu S, et al: The role of the bipolar plasmakinetic TURP over 100 g prostate in the elderly patients. Int Urol Nephrol 2014;46:2071-2077.
25.
Giulianelli R, Brunori S, Gentile BC, et al: Comparative randomized study on the efficaciousness of treatment of BOO due to BPH in patients with prostate up to 100 gr by endoscopic gyrus prostate resection versus open prostatectomy. Preliminary data. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2011;83:88-94.
26.
Qu L, Wang X, Wang H, et al: Properties in penetrating capsula of transurethral plasmakinetic resection: comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate in an ex vivo study. Urol Int 2009;82:97-100.
27.
Gratzke C, Schlenker B, Seitz M, et al: Complications and early postoperative outcome after open prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic enlargement: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Urol 2007;177:1419-1422.
28.
Helfand B, Mouli S, Dedhia R, McVary KT: Management of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia with open prostatectomy: results of a contemporary series. J Urol 2006;176(6 pt 1):2557-2561; discussion 2561.
29.
Mandal S, Sankhwar SN, Kathpalia R, et al: Grading complications after transurethral resection of prostate using modified Clavien classification system and predicting complications using the Charlson comorbidity index. Int Urol Nephrol 2013;45:347-354.
30.
Hong JY, Yang SC, Ahn S, et al: Preoperative comorbidities and relationship of comorbidities with postoperative complications in patients undergoing transurethral prostate resection. J Urol 2011;185:1374-1378.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.