Top

Published in:

01-05-2020 | Transurethral Prostate Resection | Original Article

Bipolar endoscopic enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: an ESUT systematic review and cumulative analysis

Authors: Davide Arcaniolo, Celeste Manfredi, Alessandro Veccia, Thomas R. W. Herrmann, Estevão Lima, Vincenzo Mirone, Ferdinando Fusco, Cristian Fiori, Alessandro Antonelli, Jens Rassweiler, Evangelos Liatsikos, Francesco Porpiglia, Marco De Sio, Riccardo Autorino, EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) Research Group

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 5/2020

Abstract

Purpose

To perform a cumulative analysis of the current evidence on the surgical and functional outcomes of bipolar endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (b-EEP) versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (b-TURP).

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed, Ovid^®, and Scopus^® according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement (PRISMA Statement). The meta-analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Parameters of interest were surgical and functional outcomes. Weighted mean difference, and odds ratio with 95% confidence interval were calculated for continuous and binary variables, respectively. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model.

Results

Fourteen comparative studies were included. No statistically significant difference in terms of overall baseline characteristics was found. b-EEP had higher amount of resected tissue (p < 0.0001), shorter catheter time (p = 0.006), lower Hb drop (p = 0.03), and shorter length of stay (p < 0.0001). Equally, overall post-operative complications were lower (p = 0.01) as well as short (p = 0.04), and long-term complication rate (p = 0.04). There was higher re-intervention rate in the b-TURP group (p = 0.02) whereas b-EEP group had smaller residual prostate volume (p = 0.03), and lower post-operative PSA values (p < 0.00001). At long term, b-EEP presented lower IPSS (p = 0.04), higher Q_max (p = 0.002), and lower PVR (p < 0.00001).

Conclusions

b-EEP is an effective and safe surgical treatment for BPO. This procedure might offer several advantages over standard b-TURP, including the resection of a larger amount of tissue within the same operative time, shorter hospitalization, lower risk of complications, and lower re-intervention rate.

This was submitted to PROSPERO registry: CRD42019126748.

Available only for authorised users

Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, Emberton M, Gravas S, Michel MC, N’dow J, Nordling J, de la Rosette JJ, European Association of Urology (2012) Guidelines on the management of male lower urinary tract symptoms benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Eur Urol 64:118–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.004 CrossRef

Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, Kuntz RM, Madersbacher S, Montorsi F, Speakman MJ, Stief CG (2010) Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 58:384–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.005 CrossRefPubMed

Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Seitz M, Schlenker B, Hermanek P, Lack N, Stief CG, Urology Section of the Bavarian Working Group for Quality Assurance (2008) Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate : a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 180:246–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.058 CrossRefPubMed

Bhojani N, Gandaglia G, Sood A, Rai A, Pucheril D, Chang SL, Karakiewicz PI, Menon M, Olugbade K Jr, Ruhotina N, Sammon JD, Sukumar S, Sun M, Ghani KR, Schmid M, Varda B, Kibel AS, Zorn KC, Trinh QD (2014) Morbidity and mortality after benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery: data from the American College of Surgeons national surgical quality improvement program. J Endourol 28:831–840. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0805 CrossRefPubMed

Mamoulakis C, de la Rosette JJMCH (2015) Bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: Darwinian evolution of an instrumental technique. Urology 85:1143–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.01.003 CrossRefPubMed

Autorino R, Damiano R, Di Lorenzo G, Quarto G, Perdonà S, D’Armiento M, De Sio M (2009) Four-year outcome of a prospective randomised trial comparing bipolar plasmakinetic and monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate. Eur Urol 55:922–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.028 CrossRefPubMed

Skolarikos A, Rassweiler J, de la Rosette JJ, Alivizatos G, Scoffone C, Scarpa RM, Schulze M, Mamoulakis C (2016) Safety and efficacy of bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with large prostates or severe lower urinary tract symptoms: post hoc analysis of a European multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Urol 195:677–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.083 CrossRefPubMed

Lin Y, Wu X, Xu A, Ren R, Zhou X, Wen Y, Zou Y, Gong M, Liu C, Su Z, Herrmann TR (2016) Transurethral enucleation of the prostate versus transvesical open prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Urol 34:1207–1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1735-9 CrossRefPubMed

Netsch C, Becker B, Tiburtius C, Moritz C, Becci AV, Herrmann TRW, Gross AJ (2017) A prospective, randomized trial comparing thulium vapoenucleation with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction: perioperative safety and efficacy. World J Urol 35:1913–1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2071-z CrossRefPubMed

10.

Gu M, Chen YB, Liu C, Wan X, Cai ZK, Chen Q, Wang Z (2018) Comparison of holmium laser enucleation and plasmakinetic resection of prostate: a randomized trial with 72-month follow-up. J Endourol 32:139–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0700 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Elkoushy MA, Elshal AM, Elhilali MM (2015) Reoperation after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: assessment of risk factors with time to event analysis. J Endourol 29:797–804. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0060 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hiraoka Y, Akimoto M (1989) Transurethral enucleation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 142:1247–1250CrossRefPubMed

13.

Neill MG, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, Frampton CM, Westenberg AM, Fraundorfer MR, Wilson LC (2006) Randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of prostate with plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 68:1020–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.06.021 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Geavlete B, Stanescu F, Iacoboaie C, Geavlete P (2013) Bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate vs open prostatectomy in large benign prostatic hyperplasia cases—a medium term, prospective, randomized comparison. BJU Int 11:793–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11730.x CrossRef

15.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, PRISMA-P Group (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS (1995) The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 123:A12–A13PubMed

18.

Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H (2011) Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (background document). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653

19.

Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Robertson J, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2013) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hosp Res Inst 1

20.

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12CrossRefPubMed

21.

Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Cummings GG (2012) Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 18:12–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-13 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Zhang KY, Xing JC, Chen BS, Liu CX, Lau HW, Sim HG, Foo KT (2011) 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. Singap Med J 52:747–687514

24.

Hirasawa Y, Ide H, Yasumizu Y, Hoshino K, Ito Y, Masuda T (2012) Comparison of transurethral enucleation with bipolar and transurethral resection in saline for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 110:E864–E869. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11381.x CrossRefPubMed

25.

Liao N, Yu J (2012) A study comparing plasmakinetic enucleation with bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Endourol 26:884–888. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0358 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Zhu L, Chen S, Yang S, Wu M, Ge R, Wu W, Liao L, Tan J (2013) Electrosurgical enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection for prostates larger than 70 mL: a prospective, randomized trial with 5-year followup. J Urol 189:1427–1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.117 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Ran L, He W, Zhu X, Zhou Q, Gou X (2013) Comparison of fluid absorption between transurethral enucleation and transurethral resection for benign prostate hyperplasia. Urol Int 91:26–30. https://doi.org/10.1159/000348793 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kan CF, Tsu HL, Chiu Y, To HC, Sze B, Chan SW (2014) A prospective study comparing bipolar endoscopic enucleation of prostate with bipolar transurethral resection in saline for management of symptomatic benign prostate enlargement larger than 70 g in a matched cohort. Int Urol Nephrol 46:511–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0546-4 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Luo YH, Shen JH, Guan RY, Li H, Wang J (2014) Plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate vs plasmakinetic resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison of outcomes according to prostate size in 310 patients. Urology 84:904–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.025 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Geavlete B, Bulai C, Ene C, Checherita I, Geavlete P (2015) Bipolar vaporization, resection, and enucleation versus open prostatectomy: optimal treatment alternatives in large prostate cases? J Endourol 29:323–331. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0493 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Zhang K, Sun D, Zhang H, Cao Q, Fu Q (2015) Plasmakinetic vapor enucleation of the prostate with button electrode versus plasmakinetic resection of the prostate for benign prostatic enlargement > 90 mL: perioperative and 3-month follow-up results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Urol Int 95:260–264. https://doi.org/10.1159/000381753 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Palaniappan S, Kuo TL, Cheng CW, Foo KT (2016) Early outcome of transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate. Singap Med J 57:676–680. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2016026 CrossRef

33.

Wei Y, Xu N, Chen SH, Li XD, Zheng QS, Lin YZ, Xue XY (2016) Bipolar transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate versus bipolar resection of the prostate for prostates larger than 60 g: a retrospective study at a single academic tertiary care center. Int Braz J Urol 42:747–756. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0225 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Cho C, Mak CW, Chan WK, Chu WH, Law IC (2017) Bipolar transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate for prostates larger than 80 g: comparison of early postoperative outcome. Surg Pract 21:149–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-1633.12280 CrossRef

35.

Li K, Wang D, Hu C, Mao Y, Li M, Si-Tu J, Huang W, Qiu W, Qiu J (2018) A novel modification of transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate in patients with prostate glands larger than 80 mL: surgical procedures and clinical outcomes. Urology 113:153–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.036 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Rai P, Srivastva A, Singh S, Dhayal IR (2019) Comparison of safety and efficacy of bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral enucleation and bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of prostate gland greater than 60 g in patients receiving anticoagulants and/or platelet aggregation inhibitors: a tertiary care center experience. Minerva Urol Nefrol. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03282-X CrossRefPubMed

37.

Chen SS, Lin MJ, Weng MF, Zhu LF, Deng Z, Wu CY, Cai JQ, Wu WZ, Tan JM (2018) Influence of prostate size on the perioperative and postoperative outcome of transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate: results of 892 patients with 3 years of follow-up. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 34:576–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2018.03.001 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Naspro R, Gomez Sancha F, Manica M, Meneghini A, Ahyai S, Aho T, Fiori C, Vavassori I, Da Pozzo LF, Pansadoro V, Montorsi F, Herrmann TR (2017) From “gold standard” resection to reproducible “future standard” endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: what we know about anatomical enucleation. Minerva Urol Nefrol 69:446–458. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02834-X CrossRefPubMed

39.

Gu C, Zhou N, Gurung P, Kou Y, Luo Y, Wang Y, Zhou H, Zhen C, Yang J, Tian F, Wu G (2019) Lasers versus bipolar technology in the transurethral treatment of benign prostatic enlargement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02852-1 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Boeri L, Capogrosso P, Ventimiglia E, Fontana M, Sampogna G, Zanetti SP, Pozzi E, Zuabi R, Schifano N, Chierigo F, Longo F, Gadda F, Dell’Orto PG, Scattoni V, Montorsi F, Montanari E, Salonia A (2019) Clinical comparison of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate in patients under either anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.002 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Herrmann TR (2016) Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation. World J Urol 34:1353–1355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1922-3 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Rao JM, Yang JR, Ren YX, He J, Ding P, Yang JH (2013) Plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate versus transvesical open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia > 80 mL: 12-month follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. Urology 82:176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.02.032 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Sato K, Obinata D, Funakoshi D, Saito F, Takada S, Ito A, Murata Y, Ashikari D, Ikado Y, Igarashi T, Matsui T, Mochida J, Yamanaka Y, Yamaguchi K, Takahashi S (2016) Efficacy of transurethral prostate enucleation by bipolar system for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Minerva Urol Nefrol 68:337–341PubMed

44.

Xiong W, Sun M, Ran Q, Chen F, Du Y, Dou K (2013) Learning curve for bipolar transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate in saline for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: experience in the first 100 consecutive patients. Urol Int 90:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1159/000343235 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Chen YB, Chen Q, Wang Z, Peng YB, Ma LM, Zheng DC, Cai ZK, Li WJ, Ma LH (2013) 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 189:217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.087 CrossRefPubMed

46.

Tinmouth WW, Habib E, Kim SC, Kuo RL, Paterson RF, Terry CL, Elhilali M, Lingeman JE (2005) Change in serum prostate specific antigen concentration after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a marker for completeness of adenoma resection? J Endourol 19:550–554. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2005.19.550 CrossRefPubMed

47.

Grechenkov A, Sukhanov R, Bezrukov E, Butnaru D, Barbagli G, Vasyutin I, Tivtikyan A, Rapoport L, Alyaev Y, Glybochko P (2018) Risk factors for urethral stricture and/or bladder neck contracture after monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urologia 85:150–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0391560318758195 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Roos NP, Wennberg JE, Malenka DJ, Fisher ES, McPherson K, Andersen TF, Cohen MM, Ramsey E (1989) Mortality and reoperation after open and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 320:1120–1124. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198904273201705 CrossRefPubMed

49.

Eredics K, Wachabauer D, Röthlin F, Madersbacher S, Schauer I (2018) Reoperation rates and mortality after transurethral and open prostatectomy in a long-term nationwide analysis: have we improved over a decade? Urology 118:152–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.04.032 CrossRefPubMed

50.

Giulianelli R, Gentile BC, Mirabile G, Tema G, Albanesi L, Tariciotti P, Rizzo G, Falavolti C, Aloisi P, Vincenti G, Lombardo R (2019) Bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate vs. open prostatectomy in large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a single centre 3-year comparison. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22:110–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0080-7 CrossRefPubMed

51.

Lebdai S, Chevrot A, Doizi S, Pradere B, Delongchamps NB, Benchikh A, Cornu JN, Della Negra E, Fourmarier M, Misraï V, Theveniaud PE, Descazeaud A, Robert G, CTMH-AFU group (2019) Do patients have to choose between ejaculation and miction? A systematic review about ejaculation preservation technics for benign prostatic obstruction surgical treatment. World J Urol 37:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2368-6 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Bipolar endoscopic enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: an ESUT systematic review and cumulative analysis
Authors: Davide Arcaniolo
Celeste Manfredi
Alessandro Veccia
Thomas R. W. Herrmann
Estevão Lima
Vincenzo Mirone
Ferdinando Fusco
Cristian Fiori
Alessandro Antonelli
Jens Rassweiler
Evangelos Liatsikos
Francesco Porpiglia
Marco De Sio
Riccardo Autorino
EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) Research Group
Publication date: 01-05-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Transurethral Prostate Resection
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02890-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Bipolar endoscopic enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: an ESUT systematic review and cumulative analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Does YouTube include high-quality resources for training on laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy?

Safety of on- vs off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy: per-protocol analysis from the data of the CLOCK randomized trial

Can men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTs) predict voided volumes?

The role of prostatic apex shape in voiding symptoms and urine flow: an exploratory and confirmatory study

Reply letter to: Peyton CC, Tang D, Reich RR, et al. Downstaging and survival outcomes associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens among patients treated with cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;4(11):1535–1542

Outcomes of upper tract urothelial carcinoma with isolated lymph node involvement following surgical resection: implications for multi-modal management