Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) offers a diagnostic and therapeutic role in the management of bladder tumors. Instrumental and technological advances have improved the safety and efficiency of this procedure. However, this procedure is still associated with noteworthy complications (
13). Moreover, adequate histopathological evaluation of TURBT-acquired specimens is indispensable for the proper management of patients. Therefore, optimization of patient management based on TURBT is still a topic of research and improvement.
Monopolar electrocautery is the conventional technique used for TURBT, but nowadays, the use of bipolar electrocautery is increasing. The direction of the electric current during monopolar electrocautery is from the resection loop to the grounding pad through the patient’s body. This electrical route may cause obturator nerve stimulation and a sudden adductor muscle contraction, which may cause urinary bladder perforation. Also, due to the use of non-conductive irrigation solutions (e.g., water, glycine, sorbitol, mannitol) during monopolar TURBT, the vascular absorption of the fluid may lead to life-threatening electrolyte disbalance. One more disadvantage of monopolar TURBT is the high resection temperature, which can result in significant collateral and penetrative tissue injury and charring of the specimen. However, during bipolar electrocautery, both electrodes are incorporated in the resectoscope, and the electric current runs between these two electrodes. Highly ionized particles used in bipolar electrocautery produce a plasma field around the resection tool. This plasma field breaks molecular bonds between tissues, and temperature modestly rises (40 - 70°C) during the process. So, bipolar TURBT seems to inflict less thermal damage to the resection bed and histopathological samples and is hypothesized to be a safer procedure (
14).
In our study, significantly more cautery artifacts were observed in the monopolar TURBT group. Del Rosso et al., in their randomized study, compared monopolar and bipolar TURBT and reported more thermal damage causing histopathological artifacts in the monopolar group (P < 0.01) (
15). In the study of Venkatramani et al., severe cautery artifacts were found to be significantly lower in the bipolar TURBT group (
16). However, Saini et al. reported no statistically significant difference in the incidence of cautery artifacts between the monopolar and bipolar groups (
11).
In our study, the duration of surgery, fall in hemoglobin, and postoperative hospital stay were comparable between the monopolar and bipolar electrocautery groups. Teoh et al. in their study found that the mean operation duration was similar between the monopolar group (36.3 ± 25.0 minutes) and the bipolar group (34.6 ± 27.2 minutes) (P-value = 0.696) (
17). Liem et al. also reported no significant difference in operation duration between the two groups (P = 0.536) (
18).
Mahmoud et al. reported that the mean drop in hemoglobin in the monopolar group was 1.28 ± 0.67 g/dL compared to 1.32 ± 0.50 g/dL in the bipolar group, showing no statistically significant difference (P-value = 0.830) (
19). However, in a study by Yang et al., postoperative changes in hemoglobin levels were found to be significantly lower in the bipolar TURBT group (- 0.58 ± 0.91 g/dL) than in the monopolar TURBT group (- 0.95 ± 1.28 g/dL) (P = 0.038) (
20).
Mashni et al. also reported no significant difference in the postoperative recovery time between monopolar and bipolar TURBT groups (
21). Hashad et al., in their study, compared monopolar and bipolar TURBT and reported a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay in the bipolar TURBT group (P-value < 0.001) (
22).
In our study, one patient in the monopolar electrocautery group and no patient in the bipolar electrocautery group had urinary bladder perforation, which the difference was not statistically significant. Liem et al. also reported no significant difference in the incidence of bladder perforation (P = 0.195) between these two procedures (
18). Mashni et al. in their study also compared monopolar and bipolar TURBT, reporting that no patient in any of their study groups developed bladder perforation (
21).
In our study, two patients in the monopolar electrocautery group and three patients in the bipolar electrocautery group needed blood transfusions, which showed no statistically significant difference. Gyawali et al. and Balci et al. also reported similar results (
23,
24).
Hahn described post-TURBT transurethral resection syndrome for the first time, reporting that four patients had signs of TUR syndrome after TURBT due to the absorption of the irrigating fluid through the extravascular route (
25). However, TUR syndrome after TURBT is rare and develops slowly. It may also be associated with the intraperitoneal extravasation of the irrigant fluid caused by bladder perforation (
26). No patient in our study developed TUR syndrome. In our study, only patients with tumor sizes of ≤ 4 cm were included, and the duration of surgery in both groups was < 1 hour. So, there was a minimal chance for fluid absorption and the development of dilutional hyponatremia. Yang et al., Balci et al., and Pu et al. in their studies also reported no cases of TUR syndrome in the patients undergoing TURBT (
20,
24,
27).
In our study, both groups were comparable in terms of the age and gender of the patients; however, the surgery was performed by different surgeons, which could be a limitation of our study. It is noteworthy that all the surgeons were consultants and experienced in the procedure.
5.1. Conclusions
Our study demonstrated that bipolar electrocautery was associated with a lower incidence of cautery artifacts. However, other intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were comparable to monopolar electrocautery.