经尿道等离子前列腺汽化电切术与经尿道前列腺电切术的近期疗效比较

An evaluation of transurethral plasma kinetic resection versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic BPH

目的比较经尿道等离子前列腺汽化电切术(TUPKRP)与经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)的近期疗效。方法将前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)患者随机分为两组,分别行TUPKRP和TURP,比较两组术前和术后6个月检查的各项指标并进行统计学分析。结果术前两组一般情况比较无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后6个月两组国际前列腺症状评分、生活质量评分、最大尿流率比术前均得到明显改善(P<0.01);术中输血量、电切综合征发生率、术后平均膀胱冲洗时间、置管时间和住院时间,TUPKRP组明显小于TURP组(P<0.01)。结论TUPKRP治疗BPH具有与TURP近期疗效相似;术中并发症发生率及患者术后恢复时间明显少于TURP,有良好的应用前景。

Objective thral plasma kinetic resection symptomatic benign prostatic To evaluate the clinical effect in the near future of transureversus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of hyperplasia（BPH）. Methods 80 patients who were diagnosised BPH actually were divided into two groups and treated by either TUPKRP or The perioperative marker and theraputic results were recorded and analyzed. Results was no significant difference of preoperative factors between the two groups. 6 months TURP. There postoperatively, IPSS, QOL and Qmax were significantly improved. Nosignicicant difference in the improvement of subjective sympotoms and objective results has been noted with the different procedures. The incidence of blood transfusion and TRUS occuring , the mean bladder irrigating time , catheration time , hospital stay time were significant shortor in TUPKRP than in TURP. Conclusions Although TUPKRP is as effective as TURP for the treatment of symptomatic BPH. TUPKRP has less adverse side effect and recovering time than TURP. Thus TUPKRP is a better treatment option for BPH.