Purpose: HoLEP is now considered gold standard for the treatment of BPH allowing one stop surgical treatment for all sizes of glands. The Bipolar TURP carries some advantages of HoLEP like use of normal saline which a...Purpose: HoLEP is now considered gold standard for the treatment of BPH allowing one stop surgical treatment for all sizes of glands. The Bipolar TURP carries some advantages of HoLEP like use of normal saline which allows resection for longer period of time. Additionally, there is less learning curve for bipolar TURP. We have conducted a prospective and retrospective observational study to compare and evaluate HoLEP and Bipolar TURP with respect to efficacy and surgical outcomes in our tertiary care hospital. Materials and methods: We have done a prospective and retrospective, comparative study from June 2012 to May 2014 on 200 Patients with BPH planned for surgery (fulfilling eligibility criteria), 100 in each group (HoLEP and Bipolar TURP). Results: We found that both techniques, HoLEP and Bipolar TURP, are safe and effective for treating patients with symptomatic BPH with similar functional outcomes and near similar complication rates. Conclusion: Bipolar TURP is very much comparable to HoLEP in term of efficacy and surgical outcomes. Larger multicentric studies with longer follow up data will be needed to further substantiate these findings.展开更多
文摘Purpose: HoLEP is now considered gold standard for the treatment of BPH allowing one stop surgical treatment for all sizes of glands. The Bipolar TURP carries some advantages of HoLEP like use of normal saline which allows resection for longer period of time. Additionally, there is less learning curve for bipolar TURP. We have conducted a prospective and retrospective observational study to compare and evaluate HoLEP and Bipolar TURP with respect to efficacy and surgical outcomes in our tertiary care hospital. Materials and methods: We have done a prospective and retrospective, comparative study from June 2012 to May 2014 on 200 Patients with BPH planned for surgery (fulfilling eligibility criteria), 100 in each group (HoLEP and Bipolar TURP). Results: We found that both techniques, HoLEP and Bipolar TURP, are safe and effective for treating patients with symptomatic BPH with similar functional outcomes and near similar complication rates. Conclusion: Bipolar TURP is very much comparable to HoLEP in term of efficacy and surgical outcomes. Larger multicentric studies with longer follow up data will be needed to further substantiate these findings.
