摘要
目的:比较经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术(PKRP)与经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗BPH的临床疗效及安全性。方法:将164例BPH患者随机均分成PKRP组和TURP组,比较两组术后最大尿流率(Qmax)、剩余尿量(PVR)、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)等指标。结果:PKRP组72例、TURP组76例获得随访,随访时间3个月。PKRP组尿道外口狭窄2例,膀胱颈挛缩1例,TURP组尿道外口狭窄6例,膀胱颈挛缩4例;PKRP组Qmax为(22.6±4.6)ml/s,PVR为(8.6±4.4)ml,IPSS为(4.6±1.2)分,QOL为(1.2±0.6)分;TURP组分别为(24.2±4.2)ml/s、(9.6±3.6)ml、(4.4±1.0)分、(1.4±0.8)分,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:PKRP与TURP治疗BPH疗效相近,但PKRP平均手术时间、术中出血量、围手术期及术后并发症较TURP明显减少,手术安全性高,有良好的应用前景。
Objective：To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of transurethral plasma kinetic resection of prostate （PKRP） and transurethral resection of prostate （TURP） for benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. Methods：Totally 164 BPH patients with matched lesions were divided into 2 groups： PKRP group and TURP group at our institute. The clinical date and therapeutic results were measured and compared between the 2 groups. Results： In PKRP group, the average operative time, intraoperative bleeding, the rates of postoperative temporary urinary incontinence（within 1 month）, secondary hemorrhage （within 1 month） were （60 ± 16） min, （224 ± 78） ml, 17.1 %（14/82） and 9.8% （8/82）, respectively; while in TURP group, these parameters were（80±21）min, （ 408± 115）ml, 31.7 % （26/82） and 18. 3% （15/82）, respectively. Significant differences were found between the 2 groups （ P 〈0.05）. Resected prostate weight was 28. 6 ±3.6 g in PKRP group versus 26.2 ±3.2g in TURP group. Intraoperative blood transfusion rate was 1.2 % （1/82） in PKRP group and 3.6 % （3/82） in TURP group. There were 3 pre-transurethral resection syndrome（TURS） patients and 1 TURS patient in TURP group, No transurethral resection syndrome（TURS） occurred in PKRP group. Of all the cases, 72 patients of PKRP and 76 patients of TURP were followed up for 3 months. Three patients in PKRP group and 10 patients in TURP group were found having urethral stricture after 3 months. In PKRP group, Qmax, postvoid residual（PVR） , the International Prostate Symptom Score（IPSS） and quality of life （QOL） were （22.6±4.6）ml/s, （8. 6±4.4）ml, （4.6 ±1.2） scores, （1.2±0.6） scores , respectively; while in TURP group,these parameters were （24.2±4.2）ml/ s, （9. 6±3. 6）ml, （4.4±1.0） scores, （1.4±.08） scores, respectively, these parameters were significantly improved after both procedures（ P 〈0. 05）, but there was no significant difference in the above parameters between 2 groups （ P 〉0. 05）. Conclusions .. PKRP and TURP have＇similar efficacy in the treatment of BPH, but PKRP is safer and less complicated than TURP. Thus, PKRP is a better treatment option for BPH.
出处
《临床泌尿外科杂志》
2007年第7期520-522,共3页
Journal of Clinical Urology
关键词
良性前列腺增生
经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术
经尿道前列腺电切术
Benign prostatic hyperplasia
Transurethral resection of prostate
Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate
