Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Transurethral resection syndrome in elderly patients: a retrospective observational study

  • Junko Nakahira1Email author,
  • Toshiyuki Sawai1,
  • Atsushi Fujiwara1 and
  • Toshiaki Minami1
BMC Anesthesiology201414:30

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2253-14-30

Received: 26 October 2013

Accepted: 17 April 2014

Published: 23 April 2014

Abstract

Background

Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) involves the risk of transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome owing to hyponatremia. Irrigation fluid type, duration of operation, and weight of resected mass have been evaluated as risk factors for TUR syndrome. The purpose of the present study was to identify risk factors related to TUR syndrome in the elderly.

Methods

After obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board, data on all elderly males (aged 70 years and older) who underwent TURP under regional anesthesia over a 6-year period at our institution were retrospectively reviewed.

TUR syndrome was defined as evidence of a central nervous system disturbance such as nausea, vomiting, restlessness, confusion, or even coma with a circulatory abnormality both intra- and post-operatively. Patients were divided into two groups, positive and negative, for the occurrence of the syndrome. Data such as previous medical history, preoperative and postoperative serum data, weight of resected mass, duration of operation, irrigation fluid drainage technique, anesthetic technique, operative infusion and transfusion volume, and neurological symptoms were collected. Only observational variables with p < 0.05 on univariate analyses were included in the multivariate logistic regression model to ascertain their independent effects on TUR syndrome.

Results

Of the 98 patients studied, 23 had TUR syndrome (23.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.9–32.0%). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that volume of plasma substitute ≥ 500 ml (odds ratio [OR] 14.7, 95% CI 2.9–74.5), continuous irrigation through a suprapubic cystostomy (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.3–16.7), and weight of resected mass > 45 g (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.2–14.7) were associated with significantly increased risks for TUR syndrome (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p = 0.94, accuracy 84.7%).

Conclusions

These results suggest that the use of a plasma substitute and continuous irrigation through a suprapubic cystostomy must be avoided during TURP procedures in the elderly.

Keywords

TUR syndrome Hyponatremia Transurethral resection of prostate Irrigation fluid

Background

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is common in elderly males. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a standard surgical procedure for the management of benign prostatic obstructions. Non-conductive irrigation fluid is required during the use of monopolar electric resectoscope to clear the operating field. This hypotonic, electrolyte-free, nonconductive distension solution contains no electrolytes, and excessive absorption of it can cause fluid overload and dilutional hyponatremia. The associated adverse effects arising in both the cardiovascular and nervous systems are known as transurethral resection (TUR) syndrome. TUR syndrome has a multifactorial pathophysiology that is now better understood but still remains a risk.

Several studies over the last 20 years have shown mortality rates of 0.2–0.8% [1], and TURP is still associated with significant morbidity [2, 3]. The most frequent complication of conventional TURP is perioperative bleeding, which, in a significant number of cases, may necessitate blood transfusion. The most serious complication of conventional monopolar TURP is TUR syndrome, the frequency of which varies considerably in the literature, ranging from 0.18 to 10.9% [4, 5]. The symptoms of TUR syndrome are central nervous disturbances such as dizziness, headache, nausea, vomiting, and apnea, and circulatory abnormalities such as hypertension, hypotension, bradycardia, and arrhythmia. Anesthesiologists need to remain vigilant for such signs of TUR syndrome during surgery. Left undiagnosed, this syndrome can lead to lung or cerebral edema [6]. Therefore, spinal anesthesia is often recommended for TURP procedures so that early signs of neurological deterioration can be detected.

TUR syndrome can occur during other operations, including transcervical resection of the endometrium, TUR of bladder tumors, cystoscopy, arthroscopy, and vesical ultrasonic lithotripsy. However, TURP has an extremely high incidence of TUR syndrome. Theoretical risk factors are opened prostatic sinuses, high irrigation pressures, lengthy resection, and hypotonic irrigation solutions [7]. According to a past report, 77% of patients undergoing TURP had significant pre-existing medical conditions. Increased morbidity was found in patients with a resection time greater than 90 min, gland masses greater than 45 g, acute urinary retention, age greater than 80 years, and in those of African descent [8]. The aim of the present study was to identify risk factors related to TUR syndrome in the elderly.

Patients and methods

After obtaining approval from the Ethical Committee of Osaka Medical College, data on all elderly males (aged 70 years and older) who underwent TURP with regional anesthesia from April 2006 to March 2011 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Spinal anesthesia (L3/4 or L4/5) and epidural tubing (L1/2 or L2/3) were administered before the operations. 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine hydrochloride hydrate (1.8–3.2 ml) as a spinal anesthetic was used to obtain analgesia up to the T (Thoracic) 10 level. Cases of failed spinal anesthesia converted to general anesthesia were excluded from the analysis. If the T levels were lower or the operation time continued over 1.5 h, 0.375% ropivacaine hydrochloride (3.0–5.0 ml) was administered via the epidural tube. Postoperative analgesia was obtained using continuous epidural anesthesia of 2–5 ml/h of 0.2% ropivacaine. The surgical interventions were performed with monopolar electronic retroscope by surgeons with the same qualifications and clinical experience. D-sorbitol 3% was used as the nonconductive irrigation fluid. Bags were placed 90 cm above the operating table. Hemodynamic monitoring included heart rate, electrocardiogram, systolic and diastolic blood pressures every 2 min, and percutaneous oxygen saturation. Exclusion criteria included patients with bleeding disorders or existing coagulopathy and renal insufficiency, as well as any contraindication to spinal anesthesia. All patients were preloaded with an infusion of lactated Ringer’s fluid before induction of spinal anesthesia.

TUR syndrome was defined as the presence of central nervous system disturbances such as nausea, vomiting, restlessness, pain, confusion, or even coma with circulatory abnormalities both intra- and post-operatively. A checklist recommended by Hahn et al. to grade symptoms was used (Table 1) [9]. The presence of at least one circulatory disorder and one neurological disorder is necessary for a diagnosis of TUR syndrome. For circulatory abnormalities such as hypertension (>30% above baseline systolic blood pressure), hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg), bradycardia, and arrhythmia, immediate treatment was prepared to avoid deterioration. For systolic blood pressures less than 80 mmHg, 4 mg of ephedrine hydrochloride was immediately administered intravenously. Medical and nursing personnel were intimately involved in patient care, in the monitoring and assessment of complications and the incidence and severity of TUR syndrome in the postoperative period.
Table 1

Severity score

 

Severity score

 

1

2

3

Circulatory

 Chest pain

Duration < 5 min

Duration > 5 min

Repeated attacks

 Bradycardia

HR decrease 10–20 bpm

HR decrease > 20 bpm

Repeated decreases

 Hypertension

SAP up 10–20 mmHg

SAP up > 30 mmHg

Score (2) for 15 min

 Hypotension

SAP down 30–50 mmHg

SAP down > 50 mmHg

Repeated drops > 50 mmHg

 Poor urine output

Diuretics needed

Repeated use

Diuretics ineffective

Neurological

 Blurred vision

Duration < 10 min

Duration > 10 min

Transient blindness

 Nausea

Duration < 5 min

Duration 5–120 min

Intense or > 120 min

 Vomiting

Single instance

Repeatedly, < 60 min

Repeatedly, > 60 min

 Uneasiness

Slight

Moderate

Intense

 Confusion

Duration < 5 min

Duration 5–60 min

Duration > 60 min

 Tiredness

Patient says so

Objectively exhausted

Exhausted for > 120 min

 Consciousness

Mildly depressed

Somnolent < 60 min

Needs ventilator

 Headache

Mild

Severe < 60 min

Severe > 60 min

A checklist used to define and score symptoms included in the TUR syndrome [9]. HR, heart rate; SAP, systolic arterial pressure.

Patients were divided into two groups, positive and negative, for the occurrence of the syndrome, and their risk factors were evaluated accordingly. Observational parameters were patient characteristics, dosage of local anesthesia, duration of the operation, weight of resected mass, volume of Ringer’s fluid, volume of plasma substitute, and whether continuous drainage of irrigation fluid through a suprapubic cystostomy via a pigtail drainage catheter (Angiomed Gmbh & Co. Medizintechnik Kg, Karlsruhe, Germany) was performed (Figure 1). Hespander (Fresenius Kabi Japan, Tokyo, Japan), which contains hydroxyethyl starch 6.0 g/100 ml, was used for the plasma substitute. Only variables with p < 0.05 on univariate analyses were included in the multivariate logistic regression model to determine their correlation with TUR syndrome. Whether or not the patients became symptomatic, adequate therapeutic measures were taken to prevent further complications. Timing of blood samples was at the discretion of the anesthesiologists or surgeons.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2253-14-30/MediaObjects/12871_2013_Article_221_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Continuous irrigation fluid drainage through suprapubic cystostomy. A catheter of the irrigation fluid drainage was inserted preoperatively under spinal anesthesia. Arrows demonstrate flows of the irrigation fluid.

Statistical analysis

Univariate logistic regression analyses using parameters judged to be risk factors for TUR syndrome in the literature [1], including age, body weight, and operating time, etc., were performed. Only observational variables with p < 0.05 in univariate analyses were included in the multivariate logistic regression model to ascertain their independent effects on TUR syndrome. The odds ratio and p values were calculated for each variable. A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Analysis was performed using the statistical analysis software SPSS version 17.0 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

A total of 98 patients with a median age of 76 (range, 70–91) years was included in this study. Of these, 23 had TUR syndrome (23.5%, 95% CI 14.9–32.0%). Initial circulatory abnormalities were mainly hypertension with reflex bradycardia, or sudden hypotension. In terms of patient characteristics and preoperative data, there were no significant differences between the two groups (Table 2). For grading symptoms, the checklist was used. The severity score of all of the patients with TUR syndrome was 2 and greater at the end of the procedure. Patients with a score of 3 were handled using additional anesthetic agents such as propofol or midazolam administered intravenously to support respiratory status and relieve pain immediately. In six of the 23 TUR syndrome patients, additional anesthesia including drugs for nausea was needed owing to the severity of their symptoms. One of the TUR syndrome patients was intubated owing to the severity of cardiovascular and neurological symptoms. One patient without TUR syndrome had an esophageal hemorrhage after the procedure because of esophageal variceal rupture. One patient without TUR syndrome during the procedure had postoperative nausea and vomiting. All transfusions were preoperative autologous blood donations except for one patient with TUR syndrome, who received allogeneic transfusion of red blood cells.
Table 2

Patients’ characteristics

 

TUR syndrome

 

Parameter

Yes (n = 23)

No (n = 75)

p value

Age, years

77.5 ± 5.2

75.4 ± 4.5

0.115

Height, cm

163.9 ± 6.5

162.8 ± 5.6

0.414

Body weight, kg

61.4 ± 9.3

60.6 ± 7.9

0.296

Diabetes mellitus

3 (13.0%)

12 (16.0%)

0.512

Hypertension

4 (17.4%)

11 (14.7%)

0.488

CRF

1 (4.3%)

2 (2.7%)

0.556

Cardiac disease

0 (0.0%)

2 (2.7%)

0.081

Preoperative serum data

   

  Creatinine

0.9 ± 0.4

0.9 ± 0.4

0.612

  BUN, g/dl

15.9 ± 6.8

16.7 ± 8.2

0.802

  Sodium, mol

140.6 ± 2.4

140.3 ± 2.8

0.446

  Hemoglobin, g/dl

13.5 ± 1.1

13.6 ± 1.7

0.837

  Hematocrit,%

39.1 ± 3.2

39.6 ± 4.9

0.819

Data expressed as means ± SD or number (%). TUR syndrome was defined as the presence of central nervous system disturbances such as nausea, vomiting, restlessness, pain, confusion, or even coma with circulatory abnormalities both intra- and post-operatively.

CRF, chronic renal failure; BUN, blood urea nitrogen.

Duration of operation ≥ 1.5 h, weight of resected mass > 45 g, volume of plasma substitute ≥ 500 ml, and continuous irrigation through a suprapubic cystostomy were significantly associated with TUR syndrome on univariate analyses (Table 3). Multivariate regression analysis showed that weight of resected mass > 45 g, volume of plasma substitute ≥ 500 ml, and continuous irrigation were associated with a significantly increased risk for TUR syndrome (Table 4).
Table 3

Operative and postoperative data

 

TUR syndrome

 

Parameter

Yes (n = 23)

No (n = 75)

p value

Continuous irrigation fluid drainage

14 (60.9%)

12 (16.0%)

< 0.001

0.5% Bupivacaine, ml

2.4 ± 0.4

2.4 ± 0.4

0.979

Resection weight, g

56.2 ± 31.0

30.8 ± 24.9

0.251

Resection weight > 45 g

14 (60.9%)

13 (17.3%)

< 0.001

Operation time, min

106 ± 39

70 ± 27

0.041

Operation time ≥ 1.5 hours

15 (65.2%)

19 (25.3%)

< 0.001

Plasma substitute, ml

367 ± 523

21 ± 99

< 0.001

Plasma substitute

11 (47.8%)

4 (5.4%)

< 0.001

Plasma substitute ≥ 500 ml

9 (39.1%)

3 (4.0%)

< 0.001

Saline, ml

200 ± 36

123 ± 149

0.005

Ringer fluid, ml

426 ± 329

431 ± 241

0.396

Symptom

23 (100.0%)

NA

NA

  Restlessness

14 (60.9%)

NA

NA

  Vomiting

11 (47.8%)

NA

NA

  Nausea

8 (34.8%)

NA

NA

  Pain

15 (65.2%)

NA

NA

Transfusion

16 (69.6%)

15 (20.3%)

< 0.001

Diuretics

4 (17.4%)

3 (4.0%)

0.051

Sodium chloride, mol

1.4 ± 3.3

0.2 ± 1.3

< 0.001

Postoperative serum data

   

  Creatinine, mg/dl

1.0 ± 0.6

1.0 ± 0.4

0.382

  BUN, mg/dl

13.5 ± 7.4

14.3 ± 9.0

0.839

  Sodium, mEq/l

132.7 ± 8.4

137.6 ± 3.8

< 0.001

  Hemoglobin, g/dl

10.7 ± 1.4

12.5 ± 1.8

0.081

  Hematocrit, %

31.4 ± 4.0

36.1 ± 5.4

< 0.001

Data expressed as mean ± SD or the number of patients (%). TUR syndrome was defined as the presence of central nervous system disturbances such as nausea, vomiting, restlessness, pain, confusion, or even coma with circulatory abnormalities both intra- and post-operatively. NA, not applicable; TUR, transurethral resection; BUN, blood urea nitrogen.

Table 4

Multivariate analysis

Parameter

Odds ratio

95% Confidence interval

p value

Plasma substitute ≥ 500 ml

14.7

2.9–74.5

0.001

Continuous irrigation fluid drainage

4.7

1.3–16.7

0.018

Resection weight > 45 g

4.7

1.2–14.7

0.029

Accuracy 84.7%, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p = 0.944.

Discussion

In the present study, TUR syndrome was defined as the presence of one or more cardiovascular symptoms and one or more neurological symptoms. In previous reports, the occurrence of TUR syndrome varied, with a range of 0.5 to 10.5%, because few studies used a clear definition. Many previous studies defined TUR as sodium concentrations of 125 mmol/l or less after TURP with two of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting bradycardia, hypotension, chest pain, mental confusion, anxiety, paresthesiae, and visual disturbance [10]. According to our clinical data and experience, not all patients with dynamic cardiovascular and neurological symptoms have serum sodium levels of 125 mmol/l or less. When a patient has only one symptom, the serum sodium level can be more than 135 mmol/l. In the present study, the rate of incidence of TUR syndrome was higher than in past reports. There are two possible reasons for this. One is the advanced age of the patients in the present study, because circulatory abnormalities are a greater risk in elderly patients. Another possible reason is that serum sodium levels were not included in the present definition of TUR syndrome. As mentioned, the serum sodium level is even more than 135 mmol/l at the beginning of TUR syndrome. If the patient’s status deteriorated, treatment was performed to avoid the occurrence of more severe symptoms. With respect to other conditions, D-sorbitol 3% was used as the nonconductive irrigation fluid. Bags were placed 90 cm above the operating table. Hahn et al. reported no significant differences in the volume of irrigation fluid absorbed at different bag heights [1]. The safe height for the irrigation fluid during TURP remains controversial, but it may affect the quantity of fluid absorbed.

As many previous studies showed, significant risk factors for TUR syndrome were duration of operation > 1.5 h and weight of resected mass > 45 g [8]. Despite all technical advances, resection speeds of between 0.5 and 0.9 g/min have not shown significant improvement [6]. In contrast, Akata et al. reported that changes in serum sodium during TURP correlated with rapid absorption in cases when the capsular veins and the prostate sinus are injured, but not with resection times [11]. Volume of plasma substitute ≥ 500 ml during the operation was found to be a significant risk factor for TUR syndrome in the present study. Plasma substitute contains colloids with a slightly higher osmotic pressure than Ringer’s solution or saline and it is administered from the beginning of the surgery against hypotension caused by spinal anesthesia [12]. Theoretically, excessive serum dilution should have been avoided.

More importantly, continuous drainage of irrigation fluid through a suprapubic cystostomy was found to be another risk factor in the present study. Continuous fluid drainage is useful for removing debris and blood in the operating field and in removing postoperative blood clots. This allows surgeons to continue the procedure without interruption. However, according to our observations, a number of patients had abdominal swelling owing to irrigation fluid leaking from the drainage point into the extraperitoneal space and abdominal cavity. Interestingly, Hahn et al. reported on evacuation of irrigation fluid from the bladder. Keeping the intravesical pressure below 2 kPa is the best strategy for reducing fluid absorption. The drainage catheter may not have been effective because it had a small diameter [13]. Extracellular electrolytes diffuse into the deposited irrigating fluid [14]. Abdominal pain, which may radiate to the shoulder, is a common first sign of extravasation [15]. Then, even if a suprapubic cystostomy should be inserted into the extraperitoneal area, the peritoneum can absorb large amounts of leaked irrigation fluid. This can induce hyponatremia in the patients. This fall in serum electrolytes is commonly followed by hypovolemia, with bradycardia and arterial hypotension. Hyponatremia is most pronounced 2–4 h later [15], but this extravasation may go undetected until the next day [16].

Generally, regional anesthesia should be performed during operations in which TUR syndrome might occur, because spinal anesthesia allows early detection of changes in mental status. However, the effectiveness of this approach is still controversial [17]. Symptoms of TUR syndrome may not be directly related to hyponatremia. Nevertheless, frequent blood sampling is required to accurately monitor serum sodium levels. Adding ethyl alcohol to the irrigation fluid may allow early detection of the absorption of irrigation fluid by permitting analysis of the alcohol content in the exsufflated air [18, 19].

Hypotension during TURP can be caused by three factors: adopting a combination of epidural and spinal anesthesia; hyponatremia; and vagovagal reflex caused by filling of the bladder. It is difficult to distinguish between these phenomena. We carefully used the epidural anesthesia to avoid a sudden reduction in blood pressure. Continuous epidural anesthesia was used mostly with 5 ml/h of 0.2% ropivacaine. Vagovagal reflex may be judged as a cardiovascular abnormality.

Recently, the advent of bipolar electrodes for coagulation has allowed the use of electrolytic irrigation fluid [10]. Although this can decrease the risk of TUR syndrome, researchers have reported longer operative times owing to smaller and finer resection loops and a higher rate of postoperative urethral stricture [20, 21]. Likewise, Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) may become an alternative to standard TURP in the future. However, despite the reported decreases in bleeding, TUR syndrome remains a possibility with HoLEP [22].

Conclusions

In this study, weight of resected mass > 45 g, volume of plasma substitute ≥ 500 ml, and continuous irrigation were associated with a significantly increased risk for TUR syndrome. Our results suggest that the use of a plasma substitute and continuous irrigation through a suprapubic cystostomy must be avoided during TURP procedures in the elderly to reduce the risk of TUR syndrome.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We thank Teruo Inamoto from the Department of Urology in Osaka Medical College for his contribution to the concept and interpretation of this study.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Anesthesiology, Osaka Medical College

References

  1. Hawary A, Mukhtar K, Sinclair A, Pearce I: Transurethral resection of the prostate syndrome: almost gone but not forgotten. J Endourol. 2009, 23: 2013-2020. 10.1089/end.2009.0129.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Horninger W, Unterlechner H, Strasser H, Bartsch G: Transurethral prostatectomy: mortality and morbidity. Prostate. 1996, 28: 195-200. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0045(199603)28:3<195::AID-PROS6>3.0.CO;2-E.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Melchior J, Valk WL, Foret JD, Mebust WK: Transurethral prostatectomy: computerized analysis of 2,223 consecutive cases. J Urol. 1974, 112: 634-642.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Schatzl G, Madersbacher S, Djavan B, Lang T, Marberger M: Two-year results of transurethral resection of the prostate versus four “less invasive” treatment options. Eur Urol. 2000, 37: 695-701. 10.1159/000020220.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Koshiba K, Egawa S, Ohori M, Uchida T, Yokoyama E, Shoji K: Dose transurethral resection of the prostate pose a risk to life? 22-year outcome. J Urol. 1995, 153: 1506-1509. 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67447-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R: Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)–incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006, 50: 969-979. 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.042.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gravenstein D: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) syndrome: a review of the pathophysiology and management. Anesth Analg. 1997, 84: 438-446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett ATK, Peters PC: Transurethral prostatectomy: Immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. 1989. J Urol. 2002, 167: 999-1003. 10.1016/S0022-5347(02)80323-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hahn RG: Fluid absorption in endoscopic surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2006, 96: 8-20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Michielsen DP, Debacker T, De Boe V, Van Lersberghe C, Kaufman L, Braeckman JG, Amy JJ, Keuppens FI: Bipolar transurethral resection in saline-an alternative surgical treatment for bladder outlet obstruction?. J Urol. 2007, 178: 2035-2039. 10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.038.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Akata T, Yoshimura H, Matsumae Y, Shiokawa H, Fukumoto T, Kandabashi T, Yamaji T, Takahashi S: Changes in serum Na + and blood hemoglobin levels during three types of transurethral procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy. Masui. 2004, 53: 638-644.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Morgan JP, Halpern SH, Tarshis J: The effects of an increase of central blood volume before spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a qualitative systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2001, 92: 997-1005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hahn RG: Intravesical pressure during irrigating fluid absorption in transurethral resection of the prostate. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2000, 34: 102-108. 10.1080/003655900750016706.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Olsson J, Hahn RG: Simulated intraperitoneal absorption of irrigating fluid. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1995, 74: 707-713. 10.3109/00016349509021179.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hahn RG: Transurethral resection syndrome from extravascular absorption of irrigating fluid. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1993, 27: 387-394. 10.3109/00365599309180451.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Yende S, Wunderink R: An 87-year-old man with hypotension and confusion after cystoscopy. Chest. 1999, 115: 1449-1451. 10.1378/chest.115.5.1449.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Reeves MD, Myles PS: Does anaesthetic technique affect the outcome after transurethral resection of the prostate?. BJU Int. 1999, 84: 982-986.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hahn RG: Ethanol monitoring of irrigating fluid absorption. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1996, 13: 102-115. 10.1097/00003643-199603000-00003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hahn RG: The use of ethanol to monitor fluid absorption in transurethral resection of the prostate. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1999, 33: 277-283. 10.1080/003655999750017293.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Tefekli A, Muslumanoglu AY, Baykal M, Binbay M, Tas A, Altunrende F: A hybrid technique using bipolar energy in transurethral prostate surgery: a prospective, randomized comparison. J Urol. 2005, 174: 1339-1343. 10.1097/01.ju.0000173075.62504.73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ho HS, Yip SK, Lim KB, Fook S, Foo KT, Cheng CW: A prospective randomized study comparing monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of prostate using transurethral resection in saline (TURIS) system. Eur Urol. 2007, 52: 517-522. 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.03.038.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sun N, Fu Y, Tian T, Gao J, Wang Y, Wang S, An W: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomized clinical trial. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014, [in press]Google Scholar
  23. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/14/30/prepub

Copyright

© Nakahira et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.