Evidence Hub

Association of energy source with outcomes in en bloc TURB: secondary analysis of a randomized trial

Stefano Mancon, F. Soria, R. Hurle, Dmitry Enikeev, E. Xylinas, L. Lusuardi, Axel Heidenreich, P. Gontero et al.

World journal of urology, 2025

188 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of different energy sources used for en-bloc transurethral resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) on perioperative outcomes. This sub-analysis derived from a prospective randomized study that enrolled patients undergoing ERBT vs conventional transurethral resection of the bladder (cTURB) from January 2019 to January 2022 (NCT03718754). Endpoints were pathological specimen quality and perioperative outcomes after either monopolar (m-ERBT) or bipolar (b-ERBT) or laser (l-ERBT) ERBT. 237 bladder tumors resected in 188 patients included in the analyses: 29 (12.2%) m-ERBT, 136 (57.4%) b-ERBT and 72 (30.4%) l-ERBT. Detrusor muscle (DM) was detected in 191 (80.6%) specimens. Per-tumor analysis revealed comparable rate of DM in the specimens obtained via different energy modalities (p = 0.7). Operative time was longer in the l-ERBT cohort compared to m-ERBT and b-ERBT (p = 0.02) and no obturator nerve reflex (ONR) onset was reported. On logistic regression analysis, b-ERBT was associated with negative lateral resection margins (OR 2.81; 95% CI 1.02–7.70; p = 0.04). There was no significant association of the resection technique with perforation and conversion rates (all p > 0.05). Within a median follow up of 22mo (IQR 11–29), a total of 35 (18.6%) patients had a local recurrence. On Cox regression analysis, patients resected with b-ERBT were less likely to have a recurrence (HR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15–0.78; p = 0.01); When adjusting for established…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 188 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