Democratization of the anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate with bipolar energy
Main Article Content
Keywords
Prostate, Prostatic Hyperplasia, Prostatectomy, Laser Therapy, Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Abstract
Abstract
Bipolar enucleation of the prostate (BipolEP) has emerged as an effective, safe, and cost-efficient surgical option for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), particularly in large glands. The objective of this study was to analyze recent evidence on BipolEP and comparing it with other endoscopic enucleation techniques using holmium and thulium lasers. It was carried out a review through a search of articles published in PubMed between 2020 and 2025, and 35 relevant studies were included. Evidence analyzed demonstrate that BipolEP achieves complete adenoma removal, improves Qmax and IPSS, and reduces postvoid residual volume, with complication rates comparable to those of laser-based technologies. Its superior hemostatic profile lowers equipment costs that enable complete enucleation and adenoma resection with the mushroom technique without the need for a morcelator, while at the same time it eases a shorter learning curve, because urologists are accustomed to the bipolar resectocope and they support its implementation in resource-limited settings. However, although available data confirm its efficacy and reproducibility, it remains the need for multicenter studies with long-term follow-up to consolidate its durability and standardization.
References
1. Devlin CM, Simms MS, Maitland NJ. Benign prostatic hyperplasia – what do we know? BJU Int. 2021; 127: 389-99. doi: 10.1111/bju.15229
2. Rojanasarot S, Cutone B, Bhattacharyya S, et al. Long-term risk of surgery following first diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia in middle-aged men. Cureus. 2022. doi: 10.7759/cureus.20961
3. Ying X, Gao K, Xu Z, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic surgery versus transurethral resection for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a retrospective comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and functional recovery. Arch Esp Urol. 2025;78:1453. doi: 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20257810.189
4. Shoma AM, Ghobrial FK, El-Tabey N, et al. A randomized trial of holmium laser vs thulium laser vs bipolar enucleation of large prostate glands. BJU Int. 2023;132: 686-95. doi: 10.1111/bju.16174
5. Chen Y, Li Y, Li L, et al. Global, regional, and national lifetime risks of developing benign prostatic hyperplasia in men aged over 40: a population-based cross-sectional study from 1990 to 2021. Trop Med Health. 2025;53. doi: 10.1186/s41182-025-00770-0
6. Zonana-Nacach A, Figueroa-Torres CA, Méndez-Martini NP, et al. Biopsia de próstata en pacientes con diagnóstico clínico de hiperplasia prostática benigna y relación con el antígeno prostático específico. Rev Mex Urol. 2014;74:141-5. doi: 10.1016/S2007-4085(15)30028-8
7. Xu G, Dai G, Huang Z, et al. The etiology and pathogenesis of benign prostatic hyperplasia: the roles of sex hormones and anatomy. Res Rep Urol. 2024;16:205-14. doi: 10.2147/RRU.S477396
8. Lerner LB, Mcvary KT, Barry MJ, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA guideline part I-Initial work-up and medical management. J Urol. 2021;206:806-17. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002183
9. Maremanda AP, Faris A, Breyer BN. Patient reported outcome measures: their evolution and expansion in urology. Can J Urol. 2025;32:545-50. doi: 10.32604/cju.2025.064433
10. Hashim H, Herrmann T, Malde S, et al. Non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). EAU Guidelines; 2025.
11. Abotsi E, Adanu KK, Bansah EC. Serum prostate specific antigen is a good indicator of prostatic volume in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2022;14:e1. doi: 10.4102/phcfm.v14i1.3736
12. Secretaría de Salud. Diagnóstico y tratamiento de la hiperplasia prostática benigna. Mexico: CENETEC; 2009. Disponible en: https://www.facmed.unam.mx/sg/css/GPC/SIDSS-GPC/gpc/docs/IMSS-176-09-ER.pdf
13. Yoo S, Lee Y, Park J, et al. Voided volume < 150 mL on initial uroflowmetry in men with storage symptoms: Is it an unreliable test result or a sign of severe storage symptoms? PLoS One. 2019;14: e0207208. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207208
14. Haile ES, Sotimehin AE, Gill BC. Medical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cleve Clin J Med. 2024;91:163-70. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.91a.23027
15. Unger JM, Till C, Thompson IM, et al. Long-term consequences of finasteride vs placebo in the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst; 2016;108:djw168. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw168
16. Abdulwahab Al-Radhi M, Lun LK, Safi M, et al. Can bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate be a better alternative to the bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate?: A prospective comparative study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100:e25745. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025745
17. Ramesmayer C, Deininger S, Pyrgidis N, et al. The early learning curve of the bipolar enucleation of the prostate: a multicenter cohort study. World J Urol. 2024;42. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05183-y
18. Hiraoka Y, Lin T, Tsuboi N, et al. Transurethral enucleation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Nippon Med Sch. 1986;53:212-5. doi: 10.1272/jnms1923.53.212
19. Gilling PJ, Kennett K, Das AK, et al. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) combined with transurethral tissue morcellation: an update on the early clinical experience. J Endourol. 1998;12:457-9. doi: 10.1089/end.1998.12.457
20. Ryang SH, Ly TH, Tran AV, et al. Bipolar enucleation of the prostate-step by step. Andrologia. 2020;52:e13631. doi: 10.1111/and.13631
21. Barlas IS, Yilmaz M, Aybal HC, et al. A practical approach to overcome challenges in morcellation following minimally invasive laser enucleation of the prostate: suprapubic percutaneous transvesical morcellation. World J Urol. 2025;43. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-06071-9
22. Che X, Zhou Z, Chai Y, et al. The efficacy and safety of holmium laser enucleation of prostate compared with bipolar technologies in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials. Am J Mens Health. 2022;16:15579883221140211. doi: 10.1177/15579883221140211
23. Xiong W, Sun M, Ran Q, et al. Learning curve for bipolar transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate in saline for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: experience in the first 100 consecutive patients. Urol Int. 2013;90:68-74. doi: 10.1159/000343235
24. Kiss Z, Murányi M, Barkóczi A, et al. En bloc bipolar prostate enucleation using the mushroom technique with early apical release: short-term outcomes. Medicina (Kaunas). 2025;61:1859. doi: 10.3390/medicina61101859
25. Pang KH, Ortner G, Yuan Y, et al. Complications and functional outcomes of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled studies. Cent European J Urol. 2022;75:357-86. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2022.174
26. Habib E, Ayman LM, Elsheemy MS, et al. Holmium laser enucleation vs bipolar plasmakinetic enucleation of a large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled Trial. J Endourol. 2020;34:330-8. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0707
27. Gamal Eldin A, Abdallah M, Fouad A, et al. Evaluation of early apical release with bipolar Collins knife versus Thulium-Yag laser enucleation of large-sized prostate: a randomized study. Arab J Urol. 2024;22:179-85. doi: 10.1080/20905998.2024.2321737
28. Pirola GM, Maggi M, Castellani D, et al. A cost–benefit analysis of bipolar turp for the treatment of bladder outflow obstruction. Res Rep Urol. 2021;13:487-94. doi: 10.2147/RRU.S277480
29. Gosrisirikul C. Surgical outcomes of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (B-TUEP) in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients. Insight Urol. 2024;45:89-95. doi: 10.52786/isu.a.90
30. Neill MG, Gilling PJ, Kennett KM, et al. Randomized trial comparing holmium laser enucleation of prostate with plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 2006;68:1020-4. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.06.021
31. Chen YT, Hou CP, Juang HH, et al. Comparison of outcome and quality of life between thulium laser (VelaTM XL) enucleation of prostate and bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (B-TUEP). Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2022;18:145-54. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S352583
32. Bhandarkar A, Patel D. Comparison of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with bipolar plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate: a randomized, prospective controlled Trial at midterm follow-up. J Endourol. 2022;36:1567-74. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0449
33. Kiss Z, Murányi M, Nagy A, et al. Effectiveness of the mushroom technique versus morcellation in en bloc bipolar prostate enucleation for prostates over 80 mL. PLoS One. 2025;20:e0331142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331142
34. Elsaqa M, Elgebaly O, Sakr M, et al. Comparison of outcomes of holmium laser versus bipolar enucleation of prostates weighing > 80 g with bladder outlet obstruction. Baylor Univ Med Cent Proc. 2023;36:15-9. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2022.2116764
35. Garza-Montúfar ME, Treviño-Valdez PD, De la Garza-Salinas LH. Resistencia bacteriana y comorbilidades presentes en pacientes urológicos ambulatorios con urocultivos positivos. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2018:56(4):347-53. Disponible en: https://revistamedica.imss.gob.mx/index.php/revista_medica/article/view/1159
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain their copyright and grant the Revista Médica del IMSS the right of first publication. Articles are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which allows sharing as long as the author and the original source are properly credited.