2种方法治疗良性前列腺增生术后护理的疗效对比

目的比较经尿道汽化电切除术(TUVP)和经尿道等离子切割(PKRP)治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的术后并发症和护理特点,减少和避免并发症的发生,提高2种不同手术方式的术后护理质量。方法 425例BPH患者中210例接受经尿道汽化电切除术,215例接受经尿道等离子切割手术,平均年龄75岁。术前比较2组病例前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、残余尿量(RUV)、最大尿流率(QMAX)、生活质量评分(QOL),术后比较2组平均住院时间、护理方式、术后并发发生率及疗效。结果 2组病例术前前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、残余尿量(RUV)、最大尿流率(QMAX)、生活质量评分(QOL)比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后2组平均住院时间比较P<0.05,留置尿管天数分别为5～8d、3～5d,冲洗液量为3L·(10～l8)袋、3L·(3～6)袋,膀胱冲洗时间为40～78h、25～44h,术后住院天数为(5.4±2.2)d、(3.7±1.0)d,术后并发症发生率为9.52%、2.33%。发现PKRP组在指标和术后护理干预上明显优于Turp组,差别有显著性差异。结论与经尿道汽化电切相比,经尿道汽化电切除术手术时间短,创伤小,并发症少,痛苦小,出血少,病人恢复快,并发症少于TUVP组,患者的术后经济负担明显减轻,同时2种手术方式在术后护理要点上要有所区别,各有侧重。

Objective This paper showcases the aftermath of the TUVP and PRKP treatments to BPH.It aims to compare the complications and nursing,lessen and keep off the complications as well as achieve better curative effect.Methods We used TUVP and PKRP as the major cures to 425 patients.TUVP group included 210 patients,with an average of 75 years.PRTP group included 215 patients,with an average of 75 years.There＇s significant statistic relation with the patients＇ IPSS,RUV,OMAX and QOL before their surgeries.In this essay,we＇ll also discuss the days of the patients＇ hospitality,the ways of nursing and the complication affections.Results The days of the hospitalizaiton among the two groups are respectively TUVP 5.4±2.2 days,PKRP 3.7±1.0 days,the length of the cahtetes in the patients＇bladders in the two groups are respectively,5～8 days,3～5 days,the amounts of the bladder rinse are respectively,3L×（10～18） bags,3L×（3～6） bags;the length of the bladder rinse respectively,40～78hours、25～ 44hours,the rates of the complications are respectively TUVP 9.52% and PKRP 2.33%.Conclusion TUVP and PKRP were all effective for the treatment of prostate.PKRP is a better way to cure BHP in that it lessens the patients＇ pains with less amount of hemorhage,less days of hospitlaization,fast recovery,and less complications than PKRP.