Background: There are extremely limited published studies comparing bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of prostate (BP-TURP), bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral enucleation and resection of prostate (BP-TUERP) for enlarged prostates. Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of BP-TUERP and BP-TURP for large (≥60 g) prostates with a 3-year follow-up.
Methods: We retrospectively identified 229 patients according to inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2016. After applying propensity score matching method, preoperative results and three-year follow-up outcomes in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), urinary peek flow rate (Q<inf>max</inf>), postvoid residual urine (PVRU) volume and quality of life (QoL) score were compared.
Results: Finally, within the well-balanced matched cohort, the BP-TUERP was significantly associated with longer mean operating time (OT) (P=0.039), shorter mean catheter time (CT) (P=0.001) and lower mean hemoglobin decrease (P=0.002) with more prostatic tissue removed (P=0.001) than the BP-TURP, but the median hospital stay lengths and the short- and long-term complication rates were similar between the two series. The patients in the BP-TUERP group had better long-term outcomes in IPSS, Q<inf>max</inf> and PVRU volume than these in the BP-TURP group, but not in QoL score.
Conclusions: For patients with large (≥60 g) prostates, BP-TUERP and BP-TURP are safe options, but the former is a more effective choice in long-term follow-up outcomes. BP-TUERP is related to reduced CT and hemoglobin decrease with more removal of prostatic tissue at the expense of longer OT than BP-TURP.