Evidence Hub

Bipolar plasma vaporization using plasma-cutting and plasma-loop electrodes versus cold-knife transurethral incision for the treatment of posterior urethral stricture: a prospective, randomized study

Cai W, Chen Z, Wen L, Jiang X, Liu X

Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2016

27 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Objective: Evaluate the efficiency and safety of bipolar plasma vaporization using plasma-cutting and plasma-loop electrodes for the treatment of posterior urethral stricture. Compare the outcomes following bipolar plasma vaporization with conventional cold-knife urethrotomy.

Methods: A randomized trial was performed to compare patient outcomes from the bipolar and cold-knife groups. All patients were assessed at 6 and 12 months postoperatively via urethrography and uroflowmetry. At the end of the first postoperative year, ureteroscopy was performed to evaluate the efficacy of the procedure. The mean follow-up time was 13.9 months (range: 12 to 21 months). If re-stenosis was not identified by both urethrography and ureteroscopy, the procedure was considered "successful".

Results: Fifty-three male patients with posterior urethral strictures were selected and randomly divided into two groups: bipolar group (n=27) or cold-knife group (n=26). Patients in the bipolar group experienced a shorter operative time compared to the cold-knife group (23.45±7.64 hours vs 33.45±5.45 hours, respectively). The 12-month postoperative Qmax was faster in the bipolar group than in the cold-knife group (15.54±2.78 ml/sec vs 18.25±2.12 ml/sec, respectively). In the bipolar group, the recurrence-free rate was 81.5% at a mean follow-up time of 13.9 months. In the cold-knife group, the recurrence-free rate was 53.8%.

Conclusions: The application of bipolar plasma-cutting and plasma-loop electrodes…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 27 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free