Ahmed G MOHAMED, Osama SAYED, Ramy Nageib MASOUD, Amr Medhat MASSOUD, Sherif Abdel Rahman Abdul HAY, Ahmed ABDELBARY, Mohamed F ELEBIARY, Hany FATHY
Urology Research & Practice - 2026;52(2026):1-7
Objective: To compare the feasibility of bipolar transurethral enucleation (B-TUEP) and monopolar transurethral enucleation (M-TUEP) for the management of benign prostatic obstruction. Methods: This prospective randomized study involved 160 patients: 80 patients who were subjected to B-TUEP; and 80 patients who were subjected to M-TUEP . Patients were evaluated preoperatively and for 1 year postoperatively. Results: At the 12-month follow-up, no statistically significant intergroup differences were observed in operative time, resected tissue weight, International Prostate Symptom Score, or maximum urinary flow rate. Postoperative rates of re-catheterization for acute urinary retention, urinary incontinence, and urinary tract infections were also comparable between groups. However, the B-TUEP group exhibited significantly less intraoperative bleeding (P < .001). The M-TUEP group experienced significantly longer postoperative catheterization, and hospital stays (P < .001). Furthermore, the M-TUEP group demonstrated significantly lower mean intraoperative serum sodium levels (P < .001), with 1 patient experiencing TUR (Transurethral resection) syndrome. Conclusion: The findings indicate comparable efficacy between M-TUEP and B-TUEP for benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment, although B-TUEP demonstrates superior safety. Monopolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate remains a safe and effective alternative in the absence of bipolar technology.
