论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较经尿道前列腺电切(TURP)术与等离子体双极电切(TUPKRP)术治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的临床疗效。方法:TUPKRP组98例,TURP组67例,观察平均手术时间、术中出血量、术后持续膀胱冲洗时间、留置尿管时间、住院时间、手术并发症及术前术后国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流率(Qmax)、剩余尿量(PVR)等指标。结果:TURP组失血量多于TUPKRP组,P<0.05。TURP组术后血钠浓度较术前明显下降,且低于PKRP组,P<0.05。2种方法的手术时间,IPSS,QOL,Qmax,PVR等相比差异无统计学意义。与TURP术比较,TUPKRP术出血更少,无经尿道电切综合征发生。结论:TUPKRP和TURP均是治疗BPH的微创方法;TUPKRP是一种安全性高、并发症少、疗效确切、更适合人体生理功能的一种手术方法,是现代腔道泌尿外科的一个进步。
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and plasma bipolar (TUPKRP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: TUPKRP group (n = 98) and TURP group (n = 67) were enrolled in this study. The mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of postoperative bladder washing, indwelling catheter time, hospital stay, surgical complications and preoperative and postoperative global prostate symptom scores IPSS, QOL, Qmax, residual urine volume (PVR) and other indicators. Results: The blood loss in TURP group was higher than that in TUPKRP group (P <0.05). The postoperative serum sodium concentration of TURP group was significantly lower than that of preoperative and lower than that of PKRP group, P <0.05. There was no significant difference in operation time, IPSS, QOL, Qmax and PVR among the two methods. Compared with TURP surgery, TUPKRP surgery less bleeding, no transurethral resection syndrome. Conclusions: Both TUPKRP and TURP are minimally invasive methods for the treatment of BPH. TUPKRP is a kind of surgical method with high safety, less complications, exact curative effect and more suitable for physiological function of human body. It is an advance of modern urinary tract surgery.