Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transurethrale Resektion der Harnblase

Was ist Standard, was kommt?

Transurethral resection of the urinary bladder

Status quo and outlook on new developments

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die transurethrale Resektion der Harnblase (TURB) ist der etablierte Standardeingriff zur Behandlung und diagnostischen Evaluation des nicht-muskelinvasiven Harnblasenkarzinoms (NMIBC). Zur Verbesserung der relevanten Rate an Rezidiven und des Komplikationsrisikos ist die stetige technische Weiterentwicklung des Verfahrens von hohem medizinischem Interesse.

Fragestellung

Aktuelle Standards werden dargestellt und technologische Veränderungen diskutiert.

Material und Methoden

Derzeitige Leitlinienempfehlungen sowie die Datenlage in der Literatur werden analysiert.

Ergebnisse

Das Anwendungsspektrum der klassischen TURB wird durch neue Resektionsmethoden (en bloc) und -technologien (bipolares und lasergestütztes Schneiden) ergänzt. In Kombination mit einer verbesserten Visualisierung durch teilweise bereits etablierte Technologien der photodynamischen und digitalen Bildverstärkung zeigt sich ein Optimierungspotenzial hinsichtlich der Rezidiv- und Komplikationswahrscheinlichkeit sowie der histologischen Qualität des Resektats.

Schlussfolgerung

Eine positive Beeinflussung der onkologischen Wertigkeit und Sicherheit der TURB scheint durch die Anwendung moderner Weiterentwicklungen möglich. Eine weiterführende Etablierung bis hin zu evidenzbasierten Leitlinienempfehlungen ist nötig.

Abstract

Background

Transurethral resection of the urinary bladder (TURB) is the standard intervention in the diagnostic workup and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. In order to minimize cancer recurrence and potential complications, continuous technical development of TURB is of high clinical interest.

Objectives

Presentation of the current standards and discussion of technological changes.

Materials and methods

Analysis of the current guideline recommendations and literature research.

Results

The limitations of classic monopolar TURB is supplemented by new resection methods (en bloc) and technologies (bipolar and laser resection). Along with improved visualization through partially established technologies of photodynamic and digital image enhancement, there is potential for optimization regarding the likelihood of recurrences and complications as well as the histological quality of the resected material.

Conclusion

A positive impact on the oncological value and safety of TURB seems possible through the use of modern technologies. Further establishment up to evidence-based guideline recommendations are necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Aydin A, Shafi AM, Shamim Khan M et al (2016) Current status of simulation and training models in urological surgery: a systematic review. J Urol 196:312–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Babjuk M, Burger M, Compérat E et al (2021) EAU guidelines on non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2021. EAU Annual Congress Milan 2021. EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bagnall P, Catto J, Chandra A et al (2015) Bladder cancer: diagnosis and management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beer E (1983) Landmark article May 28, 1910: Removal of neoplasms of the urinary bladder. JAMA 250:1324–1325

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bmz H, Hegde P, Shah M et al (2020) Cold en bloc excision (CEBE) of bladder tumours using Zedd excision scissors: a prospective, pilot, safety and feasibility study. Ther Adv Urol 12:1756287220972230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Burger M, Grossman HB, Droller M et al (2013) Photodynamic diagnosis of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer with hexaminolevulinate cystoscopy: a meta-analysis of detection and recurrence based on raw data. Eur Urol 64:846–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burke N, Whelan JP, Goeree L et al (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis of transurethral resection of the prostate versus minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. Urology 75:1015–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang SS, Boorjian SA, Chou R et al (2016) Diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: AUA/SUO guideline. J Urol 196:1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gakis G, Karl A, Bertz S et al (2020) Transurethral en bloc submucosal hydrodissection vs conventional resection for resection of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (HYBRIDBLUE): a randomised, multicentre trial. BJU Int 126:509–519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gravas S, Stenzl A (2014) The Storz professional image enhancement system(spies) nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer study:a multicenter international randomized controlled study. J Endourol 28:1254–1255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gupta NP, Saini AK, Dogra PN et al (2011) Bipolar energy for transurethral resection of bladder tumours at low-power settings: initial experience. BJU Int 108:553–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang J, Ma X, Zhang L et al (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography in bladder cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol Clin Oncol 8:603–608

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hurle R, Lazzeri M, Colombo P et al (2016) „En bloc“ resection of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: a prospective single-center study. Urology 90:126–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim LHC, Patel MI (2020) Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Transl Androl Urol 9:3056–3072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kramer MW, Altieri V, Hurle R et al (2017) Current evidence of transurethral en-bloc resection of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol Focus 3:567–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kriegmair MC, Rother J, Grychtol B et al (2020) Multiparametric cystoscopy for detection of bladder cancer using real-time multispectral imaging. Eur Urol 77:251–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) (2020) S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnose, Therapie und Nachsorge des Harnblasenkarzinoms, Langversion 2.0, AWMF-Registrierungsnummer 032/038OL. https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/harnblasenkarzinom/. Zugegriffen: 5. Aug. 2021

  18. Li K, Xu Y, Tan M et al (2019) A retrospective comparison of thulium laser en bloc resection of bladder tumor and plasmakinetic transurethral resection of bladder tumor in primary non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Lasers Med Sci 34:85–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mao X, Zhou Z, Cui Y et al (2021) Outcomes and complications of bipolar vs. monopolar energy for transurethral resection of bladder tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Surg 8:583806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mariappan P, Zachou A, Grigor KM (2010) Detrusor muscle in the first, apparently complete transurethral resection of bladder tumour specimen is a surrogate marker of resection quality, predicts risk of early recurrence, and is dependent on operator experience. Eur Urol 57:843–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mori K, D’Andrea D, Enikeev DV et al (2020) En bloc resection for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: review of the recent literature. Curr Opin Urol 30:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pan Y, Volkmer JP, Mach KE et al (2014) Endoscopic molecular imaging of human bladder cancer using a CD47 antibody. Sci Transl Med 6:260ra148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Planelles Gómez J, Olmos Sánchez L, Cardosa Benet JJ et al (2017) Holmium YAG photocoagulation: safe and economical alternative to transurethral resection in small nonmuscle-invasive bladder tumors. J Endourol 31:674–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Puppo P, Bertolotto F, Introini C et al (2009) Bipolar transurethral resection in saline (TURis): outcome and complication rates after the first 1000 cases. J Endourol 23:1145–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saita A, Lughezzani G, Buffi NM et al (2020) Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of high-resolution microultrasound imaging for bladder cancer detection and staging. Eur Urol 77:727–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Stenzl A, Penkoff H, Dajc-Sommerer E et al (2011) Detection and clinical outcome of urinary bladder cancer with 5‑aminolevulinic acid-induced fluorescence cystoscopy: a multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Cancer 117:938–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Straub M, Russ D, Horn T et al (2015) A phase IIA dose-finding study of PVP-hypericin fluorescence cystoscopy for detection of nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer. J Endourol 29:216–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Teoh JY, Chan ES, Yip SY et al (2017) Comparison of detrusor muscle sampling rate in monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of bladder tumor: a randomized trial. Ann Surg Oncol 24:1428–1434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Teoh JY‑C, Maclennan S, Chan VW‑S et al (2020) An international collaborative consensus statement on en bloc resection of bladder tumour incorporating two systematic reviews, a two-round Delphi survey, and a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 78:546–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vandepitte J, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Hettinger K et al (2011) Biodistribution of PVP-hypericin and hexaminolevulinate-induced PpIX in normal and orthotopic tumor-bearing rat urinary bladder. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 67:775–781

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Venkatramani V, Panda A, Manojkumar R et al (2014) Monopolar versus bipolar transurethral resection of bladder tumors: a single center, parallel arm, randomized, controlled trial. J Urol 191:1703–1707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wu YP, Lin TT, Chen SH et al (2016) Comparison of the efficacy and feasibility of en bloc transurethral resection of bladder tumor versus conventional transurethral resection of bladder tumor: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e5372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Xishuang S, Deyong Y, Xiangyu C et al (2010) Comparing the safety and efficiency of conventional monopolar, plasmakinetic, and holmium laser transurethral resection of primary non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Endourol 24:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yang SJ, Song PH, Kim HT (2011) Comparison of deep biopsy tissue damage from transurethral resection of bladder tumors between bipolar and monopolar devices. Korean J Urol 52:379–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yuan H, Qiu J, Liu L et al (2013) Therapeutic outcome of fluorescence cystoscopy guided transurethral resection in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 8:e74142

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang J, Wang L, Mao S et al (2018) Transurethral en bloc resection with bipolar button electrode for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 50:619–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zheng C, Lv Y, Zhong Q et al (2012) Narrow band imaging diagnosis of bladder cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 110:E680–E687

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, München, Deutschland

    Matthias Jahnen, Florian P. Kirchhoff, Jürgen E. Gschwend &  Michael Straub

Authors
  1. Matthias Jahnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian P. Kirchhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jürgen E. Gschwend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Straub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Straub.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

M. Straub ist Consultant der Firma Richard Wolf GmbH. M. Jahnen, F. P. Kirchhoff und J. E. Gschwend geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

M. Jahnen und F. P. Kirchhoff sind gleichberechtigte Erstautoren.

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jahnen, M., Kirchhoff, F.P., Gschwend, J.E. et al. Transurethrale Resektion der Harnblase. Urologe 60, 1416–1423 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-021-01679-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-021-01679-2

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation