期刊文献+

经尿道双极汽化治疗前列腺增生的远期疗效

PROSTECDTIVE EFFICACY OF TRANSURETHRAL BIPOLAR PLASMAKINETIC VAPORIZATION TREATED BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的评价经尿道前列腺双极汽化术(TUBVP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的远期疗效。方法选取BPH患者100例,随机分为:观察组采用TUBVP术,对照组采用开放手术。比较其国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流率(Qmax)、残余尿量(PRV)及远期并发症的发生率等情况。结果TUBVP组与开放手术组的各项指标,术前分别为IPSS(26.1±7.6)和(26.7±5.9)分,QOL(4.2±3.4)和(4.5±0.8)分,Qmax(7.6±5.7)和(7.4±4.5)ml/s,PRV((75±43)和(78±48)ml,二组比较差异无统计学意义,P>0.05。术后分别为IPSS(6.6±4.6)和(5.5±8.8)分,QOL(1.3±0.5)和(1.8±0.6)分,Qmax(20.0±10.2)和(19.5±9.3)ml/s。PRV(42±24)和(35±28)ml。二组比较差异无统计学意义,P>0.05。结论TUBVP与开放手术的远期疗效基本相同。 Objective To evaluate the prostecdtive efficacy of transurethral bipolar plasmakinetic vaporization treated benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods 100 patients with BPH were randomized into TUBVP group and open surgery group, and we compared IPSS, QOL, Qmax, PRV and incidence rate of long- term complication in the two groups. Results The means of IPSS,QOL,Qmax,and PRV were all comparable respectively, preoperations of IPSS in the two groups were(26.1 ± 7.6)vs (26.7 ± 5.9 ), QOL were(4.2 ± 3.4 ) vs(4.5 ± 0.8 ), Qmax were(7.6 ± 5.7 ) ml/s vs( 7.4 ± 4.5 ) ml/s, PRV were (75 ± 43 ) ml/s vs (78 ± 48) ml, (P 〉 0.05) ; Postoperations of IPSS in the two groups were(6.6 ± 4.6) vs (5.5 ± 8.8), QOL were( 1.3 ± 0.5)vs( 1.8 ± 0.6), Qmax were(20.0 ± 10.2 ) ml/s vs( 19.5 ± 9.3 ) ml/s, PRV were(42 ± 24) ml vs(35 ± 28) ml, ( P 〉 0.05). Conclusion The long- term outcom confirms that TUBVP is as effective as open surgey in treatment of BPH.
出处 《中国煤炭工业医学杂志》 2005年第9期952-953,共2页 Chinese Journal of Coal Industry Medicine
关键词 前列腺增生症 经尿道前列腺双极汽化术 prostatic hyperplasia transurethral bipolar vaporization of prostate
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献9

  • 1[1]Mcbust W K,Holtgrewe H L,Cockett A T K,et al.Transurethral prostatectomy; Immediate and postoper ative complications. Axooperative study of thirteen par ticipating institution evaluating 3885 patients . J Urol,1989,141: 243- 247.
  • 2[2]Evans J, Singer M,Coppinger S, et al. Cardiovascular performance and core temperature during transurethral prostatectomy. J Urol, 1994,152,2025 2028.
  • 3[3]Freedman M, van Molen S W, Makings E. Blood loss measurement during transurethral resection of the prostate gland. Br J Uro1,1985,57:311-314.
  • 4[4]Ekengren J ,Hahn R G. Blood loss during transurethral resection of the prostate as measured by the hemochrome photometer. J Urol, 1993,42: 501 - 505.
  • 5[5]Narayan P,Tewari A, Croker, et al. Factors affecting sizes and configuration of electrovaporization lesions ing th the prostate. J Uro1,1996,47:679-683.
  • 6[6]Elengren J, Hmhn R G. Complications during transurethral aporization. Urology, 1996,48: 424- 427.
  • 7[7]Henry B,Barre P. Electro-vaporisation of the prostate with the gyrus device. Eur Urol, 2000,37 (Suppl 2): 1 -175.
  • 8[8]Virdi,Faiyaz K, Ponnambalam Chandrasekar, et al. A prospectiverandomised study between transurethral va porisation using plasmakinetic energy. J Urol , 163(Suppl) :268-271.
  • 9[9]Lefaucheur J P, Yiou R,Salomon L,et al. Abbou-CC assessment of penile small nerve fiber damage after transurethral resection of the prostate by measurement of penile thermal sensation. J Urol,2000, 164: 1416-1419.

共引文献353

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部