BPH tedavisinde bipolar transüretral prostatektomi ile monopolar TUR-P’nin erken dönem sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmamızda benign prostat hiperplazisi cerrahi tedavisinde, monopolar transuretral rezeksiyon prostatektomi TUR-P ile bipolar TUR-P’nin postoperatif erken dönem klinik sonuçlarını karşılaştırmayı amaçladık.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kliniğimizde Eylül 2011 ile Mayıs 2012 tarihler arasında monopolar TUR-P grup M ve bipolar TUR-P grup B planlanan, her birinde 40’ar hasta bulunan iki med as M and B respectively, each containing ayrı grup oluşturuldu. Çalışmaya prostat ağırlıconsecutive 40 patients. The patients with patğı en az 30 gr olan hastalar dahil edildi, prostat ağırlığı için üst sınır kriteri kullanılmadı. Patoloji sonucu prostat kanseri çıkan hastalar çalışma dışı bırakıldı. Her iki grubun operasyon öncesi hemoglobin, hematokrit, serum Na, K, Cl düzeyleri ve operasyon sonrası ilk 2. saat ve 24. saatte ölçülen hemoglobin, hematokrit, serum Na, K, Cl düzeyleri karşılaştırıldı. Gruplar ayrıca hastanede kalma, üretral kateterizasyon ve operasyon süreleri yönünden de karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: Her iki grupta postoperatif serum Na, K, Cl, hemoglobin ve hematokrit değerlerinde preoperatif değerlere oranla düşme olduğu saptandı. Gruplar arası karşılaştırmada serum Na, K, Cl oranlarında istatistiksel anlamlı fark saptanmadı p>0.05 . Grup B’de grup M’ye göre hemoglobin ve hematokrit düzeylerinin daha az düştüğü tespit edildi, ancak aradaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamsızdı p>0.05 . Grup B’de grup M ile karşılaştırıldığında üretral kataterizasyon 2,4 / 2,2 gün , operasyon 47 /50 dk ve hastanede kalma sürelerinin 3,9 / 3,6 gün olduğu, aralarında istatistiksel fark olmadığı görüldü. Tüm değişkenler açısından farklılıklar p> 0,05 istatistiksel anlamlı bulunmadı.Sonuç: Sistemler arasında hemoglobin, hemotokrit ve serum elektrolit düzeylerine etki yönünden fark yoktur. Bipolar TUR-P ve Monopolar TUR-P sistemlerinin elimizdeki verilere göre erken postoperatif dönemde etkileri benzerdir

Keywords

• BPH,Bipolar TUR-P,Monopolar TUR-P,erken dönem

Comparison of the early results of bipolar transurethral prostatectomy and monopolar TUR-P in benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the early clinical results of monopolar transurethral resection prostatectomy TUR-P with bipolar TUR-P in the surgical treatment of BPH. Materials and Methods: Between September 2011- May 2012 we performed monopolar and bipolar TUR-P in two different groups named as M and B respectively, each containing consecutive 40 patients. The patients with pathologic diagnosis of prostate cancer were excluded from the study. Preoperative and postoperative 2 hours and 24 hours data regarding complete blood count and serum levels of Na, K, Cl values were compared to each other. Both groups were also compared in respect to hospital stay, duration of operation and urethral catheterization. Results: Postoperative values of hemoglobin, hematocrit and serum Na, K, Cl of two groups decreased significantly p0,05 . Mean duration of urethral catheterization, operation and hospital stay in group M were 2,4 days, 50 minutes and 3,9 days versus in group B 2,2 days, 47 minutes and 3,6 days respectively. The differences in respect to all variables were not significant p>0,05 . Conclusion: Bipolar TUR-P in the levels of serum electrolytes between the two methods were similar. Based on the available data, in postoperative early period of bipolar TUR-P is similar to monopolar TUR-P

Keywords

• BPH, Bipolar TUR-P, Monopolar TUR-P, The early stag

References

1. Wei JT, Calhoun E, Jacobsen SJ: Urologic diseases in Ame- rica project: benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2005; 173:1256–61.
2. Akı FT, Aygun C, Bilir N et al. Prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms in a community-based survey of men in Turkey. International Journal of Urology 2003; 10: 364–70.
3. Unsal A, Ayranci U, Tozun M. Prevalence of Lower Urınary Tract Symptoms Among Men In A Rural District of Wes- tern Turkey. Pak J Med Sci 2010 Vol. 26 No. 2.
4. Reich O, Gratzke C, Stief CG. Techniques and long-term re- sults of surgical procedures for BPH. Eur Urol 2006;49:970- 8.
5. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P)—inciden- ce, management, and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50:969–80.
6. Ahyai SA, Peter Gilling , Steven A. Kaplan et al. Meta- analysis of Functional Outcomes and Complications Fol- lowing Transurethral Procedures for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Resulting from Benign Prostatic Enlargement. Eur Urol. 2010; 58: 384 –97.
7. Roehrborn CG. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: an overview. Rev Urol 2005;7:3–14.
8. Lowe FC. Goals for benign prostatic hyperplasia therapy. Urology 2002;59:1-2.

9. Guidelines on benign prostatic hyperplasia; European As- sociation of Urology Guidelines, 2010.
10. Issa MM. Technological advances in transurethral resection of the prostate:bipolar versus monopolar TUR-P. J Endou- rol. 2008;22:1587–95.
11. Mamoulakis C, Ubbink DT, de la Rosette JJ. Bipolar versus mo nopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a syste- matic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Urol 2009; 56:798-809.
12. Issa MM, Young MR, Bullock AR, Bouet R, Petros JA. Dilu- tional hyponatremia of TUR-P syndrome: a historical event in the 21st century. Urology 2004;64:298-301.
13. Michielsen DP, Debacker T, De Boe V, et al. Bipolar transu- rethral resection in saline-an alternative surgical treatment for bladder outlet obstruction? J Urol 2007;178:2035-9.
14. Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Stock C, Teber D, De La Rosette J. Bi polar transurethral resection of the prostate technical modifica tions and early clinical experience. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2007;16:11-21.
15. Erturhan S, Erbagci A, Seckiner I, Yagci F,Ustun A. Plasma- kinetic resection of the prostate versus standard transureth- ral resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized trial with 1-year follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2007; 10: 97–100.
16. Bhansali M, Patankar S, Dobhada S, Khaladkar S. Manage- ment of large (>60 g) prostate gland: PlasmaKinetic Super- pulse (bipolar) versus conventional (monopolar) transu- rethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol. 2009;23:141–6.
17. De Sio M, Autorino R, Quarto G, et al. Gyrus bipolar versus Standard monopolar transurethral resection of the prosta- te: a randomized prospective trial. Urology 2006;67:69–72.
18. Ho HSS, Yip SKH, Lim KB, et al. A prospective randomi- zed study comparing monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of prostate using transurethral resection in saline (TURIS) system. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 517–524.
19. Singh H, Desai MR, Shrivastav P, Vani K. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of prostate: randomized controlled study. J Endourol 2005;19:333–8.
20. Armstrong N, Lourenco T, et al. Systematic review and eco- nomic modelling of effectiveness and cost utility of surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement. He- alth Technol Assess. 2008;(12)35:1-146.