普通电切和双极等离子电切治疗BPH的疗效比较

Efficacy comparison of transurethral resection of the prostate and transurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate in the treatment of BPH

目的比较经尿道前列腺电切（TURP）和经尿道双极等离子前列腺电切（TKRP）两种不同的电切方式治疗BPH的临床疗效及安全性。方法在我院经过该两种术式治疗过的680例患者中，各抽取60例具有可比性的资料，TURP组60例，TKUP组60例，就手术时间、术中出血量和术中电切综合征（TURS）的发生率和术后并发症的发生及疗效进行比较。结果上述各项指标两组差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两种术式患者手术后国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOL）、最大尿流率（MFR）和剩余尿（PVR），均得到显著改善，但两组之间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。TURP组术后并发症：水中毒、暂时性尿失禁、继发性出血：术后发症在TKRP组未发现。TKRP组术后附睾炎、尿道口狭窄见于分别为2例、3例，而TKRP组分别为1例、2例，全部病例均治愈。结论与TURP相比，TKRP具有手术时间短、术中出血少和并发症少的特点，安全性更高。

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of TURP and TKRP in the treatment of BPH. Methods A total of 680 BPH patients treated by either TURP or TKRP were enrolled in the study and were grouped accordingly. Sixty patients were chosen from each group for efficacy comparisons. Operation duration, intraoperative haemorrhage, incidences of intraoperative TRUS, and postoperative complications and outcomes were comparatively analyzed. Results There were all statistical significances in the above parameters between these two groups （P〈0.05）. Other parameters as postoperative IPSS, QoL, MFR and PVR were also improved but no significance was found （P〉 0.05）. Five cases of water intoxication, 3 cases of temporary incontinence, and 2 cases of secondary haemorrhage were found in TURP groups, but no complications were found in TKRP group. Complications of epidydimitis and stricture of urethral orifice occurred in 2 and 3 cases in TUPR group, and 1 and 2 cases in TKRP group. All complications were cured. Conclusion TKRP showed great advantages on shorter operation duration, less bleeding, and fewer complications with higher safety over TURP.