Objectives:To compare the depth of thermal necrosis after use of bipolar resection and vaporization technique comparing intra-individually bipolar loop and bipolar button electrodes.Methods:Transurethral resection and...Objectives:To compare the depth of thermal necrosis after use of bipolar resection and vaporization technique comparing intra-individually bipolar loop and bipolar button electrodes.Methods:Transurethral resection and vaporization of the prostate was performed in 55 male patients(260 specimens in total).In a standardized procedure,a bipolar resection loop was used for resection,and a bipolar button electrode was used for vaporization.Both electrodes were applied in each patient,either in the left or in the right lateral lobe.The depth of necrotic zones in the resected or vaporized tissue of each patient was measured in a standardized way by light microscopy.Results:The mean depth with standard deviation of thermal injury caused by the loop electrode was 0.0495±0.0274 mm.The vaporization electrode caused a mean thermal depth with standard deviation of 0.0477±0.0276 mm.The mean difference of necrosis zone depths between the two types of electrodes(PlasmaButtoneresection loop)was 0.0018 mm(p=0.691).Conclusion:For the first time,we present directly measured values of the absolute necrosis zone depth after application of plasma in the transurethral treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.The measured values were lower than in all other transurethral procedures.Standardized procedures of measurement and evaluation allow a statistically significant statement that the low necrosis depth in bipolar procedures is independent of the applied electrodes.展开更多
Background Transurethral resection of prostate （TURP） has been considered as the standard treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. However, issues that have not yet been overcome for TURP include bleeding...Background Transurethral resection of prostate （TURP） has been considered as the standard treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. However, issues that have not yet been overcome for TURP include bleeding and absorption of irrigation fluid. Thus, novel improvement of the surgery is necessary. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bipolar plasma vaporization of the prostate （BPVP） with ＂button-type＂ electrode against standard TURP for BPH.展开更多
目的 对比探究经尿道前列腺双极等离子电切术(Plasma Kinetic Resection of the Prostate, PKRP)与传统经尿道前列腺电切术(Transurethral Resection of the Prostate, TURP)在良性前列腺增生治疗中的临床效果差异。方法 回顾性选取2023...目的 对比探究经尿道前列腺双极等离子电切术(Plasma Kinetic Resection of the Prostate, PKRP)与传统经尿道前列腺电切术(Transurethral Resection of the Prostate, TURP)在良性前列腺增生治疗中的临床效果差异。方法 回顾性选取2023年1-12月在甘肃省武威市凉州区解放军第九四三医院接受治疗的100例良性前列腺增生患者的临床资料,依照不同的治疗手段分为A组(50例,接受TURP治疗)和B组(50例,接受PKRP治疗)。对比两组的治疗效果。结果 治疗后,B组各项手术相关指标优于A组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。治疗后,B组前列腺症状评分、勃起功能水平评分低于A组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。治疗后,B组尿流率(19.58±2.49)mL/s高于A组,残余尿量(21.51±3.31)mL低于A组,差异有统计学意义(t=8.919、14.185,P均<0.05)。结论 在良性前列腺增生患者的治疗过程中,采用PKRP能够更明显地改善患者围术期的各项指标,并且在缓解前列腺症状、提升勃起功能以及改善尿动力学方面表现出更为突出的优势。展开更多
目的:探讨经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术(TUPKP)与经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of the prostate,TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的疗效。方法:选取2021年1月—2022年1月麻城市人民医院就诊的230例BPH患者作为研究对象,...目的:探讨经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术(TUPKP)与经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of the prostate,TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的疗效。方法:选取2021年1月—2022年1月麻城市人民医院就诊的230例BPH患者作为研究对象,按照不同手术方法将其分为TURP组(n=120)与TUPKP组(n=110);TURP组采用TURP治疗,TUPKP组采用TUPKP治疗。对比两组临床指标、远期疗效指标[国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流量(Qmax)、残余尿量(PVR)]及两组术后并发症发生情况。结果:TUPKP组手术时间、置管时间及住院时间均短于TURP组(P<0.05),术中出血量小于TURP组(P<0.05),TUPKP组切除腺体重量大于TURP组(P<0.05)。术前,两组IPSS、Qmax、PVR及QOL比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后3个月,两组IPSS、PVR及QOL均降低(P<0.05),且TUPKP组均低于TURP组(P<0.05),两组Qmax高于术前,且TUPKP组大于TURP组(P<0.05)。TUPKP组并发症发生率低于TURP组(P<0.05)。结论:与TURP相比,TUPKP手术创伤小,术中出血量少,可显著缩短手术时间、住院时间,且可有效改善前列腺症状,降低残余尿量,提升生活质量,术后并发症少。展开更多
文摘Objectives:To compare the depth of thermal necrosis after use of bipolar resection and vaporization technique comparing intra-individually bipolar loop and bipolar button electrodes.Methods:Transurethral resection and vaporization of the prostate was performed in 55 male patients(260 specimens in total).In a standardized procedure,a bipolar resection loop was used for resection,and a bipolar button electrode was used for vaporization.Both electrodes were applied in each patient,either in the left or in the right lateral lobe.The depth of necrotic zones in the resected or vaporized tissue of each patient was measured in a standardized way by light microscopy.Results:The mean depth with standard deviation of thermal injury caused by the loop electrode was 0.0495±0.0274 mm.The vaporization electrode caused a mean thermal depth with standard deviation of 0.0477±0.0276 mm.The mean difference of necrosis zone depths between the two types of electrodes(PlasmaButtoneresection loop)was 0.0018 mm(p=0.691).Conclusion:For the first time,we present directly measured values of the absolute necrosis zone depth after application of plasma in the transurethral treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.The measured values were lower than in all other transurethral procedures.Standardized procedures of measurement and evaluation allow a statistically significant statement that the low necrosis depth in bipolar procedures is independent of the applied electrodes.
文摘Background Transurethral resection of prostate （TURP） has been considered as the standard treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. However, issues that have not yet been overcome for TURP include bleeding and absorption of irrigation fluid. Thus, novel improvement of the surgery is necessary. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bipolar plasma vaporization of the prostate （BPVP） with ＂button-type＂ electrode against standard TURP for BPH.
文摘目的 对比探究经尿道前列腺双极等离子电切术(Plasma Kinetic Resection of the Prostate, PKRP)与传统经尿道前列腺电切术(Transurethral Resection of the Prostate, TURP)在良性前列腺增生治疗中的临床效果差异。方法 回顾性选取2023年1-12月在甘肃省武威市凉州区解放军第九四三医院接受治疗的100例良性前列腺增生患者的临床资料,依照不同的治疗手段分为A组(50例,接受TURP治疗)和B组(50例,接受PKRP治疗)。对比两组的治疗效果。结果 治疗后,B组各项手术相关指标优于A组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。治疗后,B组前列腺症状评分、勃起功能水平评分低于A组,差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。治疗后,B组尿流率(19.58±2.49)mL/s高于A组,残余尿量(21.51±3.31)mL低于A组,差异有统计学意义(t=8.919、14.185,P均<0.05)。结论 在良性前列腺增生患者的治疗过程中,采用PKRP能够更明显地改善患者围术期的各项指标,并且在缓解前列腺症状、提升勃起功能以及改善尿动力学方面表现出更为突出的优势。
文摘目的:探讨经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术(TUPKP)与经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of the prostate,TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的疗效。方法:选取2021年1月—2022年1月麻城市人民医院就诊的230例BPH患者作为研究对象,按照不同手术方法将其分为TURP组(n=120)与TUPKP组(n=110);TURP组采用TURP治疗,TUPKP组采用TUPKP治疗。对比两组临床指标、远期疗效指标[国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流量(Qmax)、残余尿量(PVR)]及两组术后并发症发生情况。结果:TUPKP组手术时间、置管时间及住院时间均短于TURP组(P<0.05),术中出血量小于TURP组(P<0.05),TUPKP组切除腺体重量大于TURP组(P<0.05)。术前,两组IPSS、Qmax、PVR及QOL比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后3个月,两组IPSS、PVR及QOL均降低(P<0.05),且TUPKP组均低于TURP组(P<0.05),两组Qmax高于术前,且TUPKP组大于TURP组(P<0.05)。TUPKP组并发症发生率低于TURP组(P<0.05)。结论:与TURP相比,TUPKP手术创伤小,术中出血量少,可显著缩短手术时间、住院时间,且可有效改善前列腺症状,降低残余尿量,提升生活质量,术后并发症少。
