A prospective, randomised, double-blinded study to compare bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (bipolar TURP) versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (monopolar TURP) in terms of safety and efficacy

ISRCTN ISRCTN16583435
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16583435
Protocol serial number N/A
Sponsor Academic Medical Center (AMC), Department of Urology (The Netherlands)
Funders Karl Storz (UK), Academic Medical Center (AMC) (The Netherlands) - Department of Urology
Submission date
21/07/2006
Registration date
21/07/2006
Last edited
19/09/2007
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Urological and Genital Diseases
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data
Record updated in last year

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Dr S.A. Lagerveld-Zaaijer
Scientific

Academic Medical Center (AMC)
Department of Urology
P.O. Box 22660
Amsterdam
1100 DD
Netherlands

Phone +31 (0)20 5666030
Email S.A.Zaaijer@amc.uva.nl

Study information

Primary study designInterventional
Study designA prospective, randomised, double-blinded study
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Scientific title
Study acronymTURP
Study objectivesBipolar devices will minimise the disadvantages of the monopolar device such as the risk of electrolyte disturbances by using saline irrigation, bleeding and the risk of nervous stimulation.
Ethics approval(s)Not provided at time of registration.
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH)
InterventionPatients will be randomised into either:
Group A: who will undergo a bipolar TURP
Group B: who will undergo a monopolar TURP
Intervention typeOther
Primary outcome measure(s)

1. Safety bipolar TURP compared with monoploar TURP by means of transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome
2. Blood loss
3. Number and severity of adverse events

Key secondary outcome measure(s)

1. Efficacy of bipolar TURP compared with monopolar TURP by means of IPSS or quality of life (QoL) scores
2. International index of erectile function (IIEF) score
3. Qmax
4. Cutting rate
5. Length of catherisation
6. Length of hospital stay
7. Length of operation
8. Impact on prostate specific antigen (PSA) level
9. Number of strictures

Completion date31/12/2010

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
SexAll
Target sample size at registration94
Key inclusion criteria1. Candidates for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)
2. Qmax less than 16 ml/sec
3. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) score greater than 14
4. Voided volume greater than 125
5. Patients in retention with an indwelling catheter or intermittent catheterisation
6. Informed consent
Key exclusion criteria1. If patient is suspected to be suffering from prostate cancer
2. Prior prostate surgery, including minimal invasive therapies
3. Active urinary tract infection
4. Known or suspected neurogenic decompensated bladder (postvoid residual urine volume [PVR] greater than 400ml/sec) or compensated detrusor function
5. Immunosuppression; using prednisone
6. Known or suspected malignant disease affecting the bladder or lower urinary tract
7. 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor within the last three months before baseline
8. Alpha-blockers within the last six weeks before baseline
9. Specific severe heart disease in whom anti-coagulant therapy might jeopardize treatment outcome
Date of first enrolment01/07/2006
Date of final enrolment31/12/2010

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • Netherlands

Study participating centre

Academic Medical Center (AMC)
Amsterdam
1100 DD
Netherlands

Results and Publications

Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Study website Study website 11/11/2025 11/11/2025 No Yes