Trial reportWorld journal of urology2024
Monopolar versus bipolar transurethral resection of bladder Tumour: post-hoc analysis of a prospective trial.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advances and Emerging Innovations in Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor (TURBT) for Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Current Literature.Research and reports in urology · 2025Review
- Efficacy of a pubic superior ramus approach versus a distal approach for obturator nerve block in transurethral bladder tumor resection: a randomized controlled trial.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPreviously, in a randomised trial we demonstrated bipolar transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) could achieve a higher detrusor sampling rate than monopolar TURBT. We hereby report the long-term oncological outcomes following study intervention.
methodsThis is a post-hoc analysis of a randomized phase III trial comparing monopolar and bipolar TURBT. Only patients with pathology of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) were included in the analysis. Per-patient analysis was performed. Primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS).
resultsFrom the initial trial, 160 cases were randomised to receive monopolar or bipolar TURBT. 24 cases of non-urothelial carcinoma, 22 cases of muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and 9 cases of recurrences were excluded. A total of 97 patients were included in the analysis, with 46 in the monopolar and 51 in the bipolar group. The median follow-up was 97.1 months. Loss-to-follow-up rate was 7.2%. Regarding the primary outcome of RFS, there was no significant difference (HR = 0.731; 95%CI = 0.433-1.236; P = 0.242) between the two groups. PFS (HR = 1.014; 95%CI = 0.511-2.012; P = 0.969), CSS (HR = 0.718; 95%CI = 0.219-2.352; P = 0.584) and OS (HR = 1.135; 95%CI = 0.564-2.283; P = 0.722) were also similar between the two groups. Multifocal tumours were the only factor that was associated with worse RFS.
conclusionDespite the superiority in detrusor sampling rate, bipolar TURBT was unable to confer long-term oncological benefits over monopolar TURBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.