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
Scientific
Academic Medical Center (AMC)
Department of Urology
P.O. Box 22660
Amsterdam
1100 DD
Netherlands
| Phone | +31 (0)20 5666030 |
|---|---|
| S.A.Zaaijer@amc.uva.nl |
Study information
| Primary study design | Interventional |
|---|---|
| Study design | A prospective, randomised, double-blinded study |
| Secondary study design | Randomised controlled trial |
| Scientific title | |
| Study acronym | TURP |
| Study objectives | Bipolar 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) studied | Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) |
| Intervention | Patients will be randomised into either: Group A: who will undergo a bipolar TURP Group B: who will undergo a monopolar TURP |
| Intervention type | Other |
| Primary outcome measure(s) |
1. Safety bipolar TURP compared with monoploar TURP by means of transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome |
| Key secondary outcome measure(s) |
1. Efficacy of bipolar TURP compared with monopolar TURP by means of IPSS or quality of life (QoL) scores |
| Completion date | 31/12/2010 |
Eligibility
| Participant type(s) | Patient |
|---|---|
| Age group | Adult |
| Sex | All |
| Target sample size at registration | 94 |
| Key inclusion criteria | 1. 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 criteria | 1. 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 enrolment | 01/07/2006 |
| Date of final enrolment | 31/12/2010 |
Locations
Countries of recruitment
- Netherlands
Study participating centre
Academic Medical Center (AMC)
Amsterdam
1100 DD
Netherlands
1100 DD
Netherlands
Results and Publications
| Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to share | No |
|---|---|
| IPD sharing plan summary | Not 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 |