腹腔镜下耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术 技术成熟前后与经尿道前列腺等离子 电切术的临床比较

目的 探讨技术成熟后腹腔镜下耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术的可行性及临床价值。方法收集本院2013年1月至2016年12月住院的大体积（＞80 mL）良性前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)患者的临床资料,按照设定的入选及排除标准共有104例患者入组。研究分为三组,A组：2013年1月至2014年12月行腹腔镜下耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术的患者22例;B组：2013年1月至2016年12月行经尿道前列腺等离子电切术（transurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate, PKRP）的患者57例;C组：2015年1月至2016年12月行腹腔镜下耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术的患者25例。记录每组患者年龄、前列腺体积、国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、残余尿测定（RUV）、最大尿流率（Qmax）,术中手术时间、出血量;术后膀胱冲洗时间、留置尿管时间、住院时间;术后3个月IPSS评分、RUV、Qmax,最后对结果进行统计学分析。结果 ①早期腹腔镜下耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术手术时间长、术中出血多,技术成熟后可明显缩短手术时间,减少术中出血量;②该手术成熟后在不延长手术时间的前提下,术后3个月疗效与TPKRP相当;③该手术与TPKRP相比,可以缩短膀胱冲洗时间、拔管天数以及术后住院天数。结论 成熟的腹腔镜下耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术是治疗大体积（＞80 mL）BPH安全有效的方法。     

经尿道等离子体双极前列腺电切术与经尿道前列腺电切术的疗效比较研究

目的:对比研究经尿道等离子体双极电切术(transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate,PKRP)及经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of prostate,TURP)的安全性与临床疗效。方法:纳入2010年3月至2012年9月78例有下尿路症状(lower urinary tract symptoms,LUTS)的良性前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)患者,按1:1的比例随机分为两组,一组行PKRP(PKRP组),另一组行TURP(TURP组)。对比两组患者术前、术后(1个月、12个月)国际前列腺症状评分(international prostate symptom scores,IPSS)、最大尿流率(maximum flow-rate,Qmax)、生活质量(quality of life,QOL)、残余尿量(postvoid residual volume,PVR),围手术期基本情况,如手术时间、留置导尿管时间、膀胱冲洗量、住院时间;并发症发生率,如经尿道电切综合征(transurethral resection syndrome,TURS)、输血、尿潴留、尿道狭窄等。结果:两组患者手术时间、术中与术后冲洗液量、术后膀胱冲洗时间、包膜穿孔、尿道损伤、输血、尿潴留、二次手术、尿道狭窄发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),PKRP组留置导尿管时间、住院时间明显少于TURP组。PKRP组无一例发生TURS,TURP组中6例患者发生TURS(P<0.05)。术后1个月、12个月两组患者IPSS、Qmax、QOL、PVR差异均无统计学意义,但两组患者IPSS评分均较术前显著下降,Qmax显著增高,PVR显著减少(P<0.05)。结论:PKRP与TURP具有相同的治疗效果,相较TURP,PKRP具有更短的留置导尿管时间、住院时间,发生TURS的风险更低;因此,PKRP是可供选择的前景良好的治疗BPH的微创术式。     

前列腺增生症经膀胱切除术与经尿道电切术的比较与选择

为寻找治疗前列腺增生症有效的手术方法。对９６例采用耻骨上经膀胱前列腺切除术，同时对１４３例采用经尿道前列腺电切术，并将两者的临床资料进行比较。结果显示；两组术中输血例数，输血量及膀胱冲洗转清时间，保留尿管时间，并发切口感染例数均有极显著性差异，而两组并发尿失禁，尿道狭窄的例数无显著性差异。     

腹腔镜下耻骨后腹膜外保留尿道的前列腺切除术

目的探讨腹腔镜下经耻骨后腹膜外保留尿道的前列腺切除术治疗大腺体前列腺增生症的可行性。方法自2006年1月至2007年1月对9例前列腺增生症的病人采用腹腔镜行耻骨后腹膜外前列腺切除术,病人年龄为(77.8±6.8)岁,范围为(62～83)岁。经直肠前列腺B超显示前列腺大小为(101.3±36.2)g,范围为(62～172)g,均无明显中叶增生。腹腔镜手术包括耻骨后腹膜外腔的建立、排列成倒U字形5个穿刺套管的放置、前列腺被膜的切开、增生腺瘤的切除、前列腺部尿道的保护及前列腺被膜的缝合等主要步骤。结果9例病人手术顺利,术中出血(190±160.6)ml,范围为(60～600)ml,手术时间为(174±59.8)min,范围为(90～240)min。术后恢复顺利,尿管拔除时间为(8.4±3.8)d。术后3月复查病人尿流率、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)评分、生活质量评分(QOL)等较术前明显好转。术前有性功能的4例病人术后性功能无损。结论对腺体大的前列腺增生症行腹腔镜下经耻骨后腹膜外行前列腺切除术是可行的,病人创伤小、恢复快、效果满意。     

耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术67例报告

报告采用经耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术治疗前列腺增生６７便，术后随访３￣１８个月，疗效满意，认为本手术具有不损伤尿道，术后恢复快，并发症少，保留顺行射精，简单易行等优点，适用于除外前列腺纤维化，前列腺肿瘤的前列腺增生患者。     

经尿道等离子气化术与电切术治疗前列腺增生疗效比较

我院应用经尿道前列腺等离子气化术(ＴＵＰＶＰ)治疗良性前列腺增生症 (ＢＰＨ) 60例并与同期经尿道电切术 (ＴＵＲＰ) 60例作疗效比较 ,现报告如下。1　资料与方法1 .1　临床资料ＴＵＰＶＰ组 60例 ,年龄 66～ 89岁 ,平均 75 .1 2岁。前列腺重 2 5～ 75 ｇ,平均 48ｇ。ＴＵＲＰ组 60例 ,年龄 65～ 85岁 ,平均 74.3 2岁。前列腺重 2 8～ 68ｇ,平均 45ｇ。两组术前常规行直肠指检、Ｂ超及血ＰＳＡ检查。术前和术后 1、3个月分别测定最大尿流率 ,Ｂ超测前列腺体积 ,并作国际前列腺症状评分(ＩＰＳＳ)。1 .2　手术方法ＴＵＰＶＰ组采用英国Ｇｙ…     

经尿道前列腺电切术后的腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术

目的 探讨TURP术后发现前列腺癌行腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的手术技巧及经验.方法 2007年4月至2010年7月收治既往行TURP术后发现前列腺癌的患者5例,平均年龄73岁,TURP术后平均(2.8±1.1)个月行腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术.结果 5例手术顺利完成,其中经腹腔途径1例,经腹膜外途径4例.平均手术时间(227.6±38.4)min,术中平均出血(130.0±152.5)ml,术后平均随访(16.1±15.9)个月,最长40个月,5例均存活,控尿功能好,无明显尿失禁.结论 TURP术后行腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术疗效满意,先前的TURP术增加了腹腔镜操作难度,但在腹腔镜技术熟练的条件下是可行的.

Abstract：

Objective To describe our experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP)for incidental prostate cancer after TURP. Methods From April 2007 to July 2010, 5 patients with incidental prostate cancer after TURP were treated with a mean age of 73 years. The patients underwent LRP (2.8± 1.1) months after TURP. Results The five cases of LRP were performed successfully, with 1 case of transperitoneal approach and 4 cases of extraperitoneal approach. Mean operation time was (227.6±38.4) min, mean blood loss was (130±152.5) ml, and the mean follow-up was (16.1 ± 15.9) months. All five patients survived, and their urinary function was good without any incontinence. Conclusions Previous TURP represents a technical challenge when performing LRP, but highly skilled surgeons trained to perform LRPs can handle it.     

耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术52例报告

应用耻骨后保留尿道前列腺切除术治疗前列腺增生症５２例。本术式保留了尿道和精道的完整性。结果所有患者术后首镒排尿均通畅，无尿失禁，血尿或仅有轻度血尿，无需膀胱冲洗，留置导管时间短。术后２周尿流动力学检查，每次尿量２１０－４３０ｍｌ，平均尿流率１２－１５ｍｌ／ｓ，Ｂ超测定残余尿量３－１０ｍｌ。     

经尿道前列腺汽化电切术结合经尿道前列腺电切术治疗前列腺增生症

目的：探讨经尿道前列腺汽化电切术(TUVP)结合经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗前列腺增生患者的价值。方法：结合三种电极的特点回顾性分析146例前列腺增生患者接受TUVP和TURP治疗后的疗效。结果：全部患者均安全度过围手术期，术后疗效满意，无严重并发症，提高了高龄高危患者的生活质量。结论：TUVP结合TURP是治疗前列腺增生的安全有效的方法。     

经尿道前列腺汽化切割术与电切术的比较

目的 比较经尿道前列腺汽化切割术(TUVP)和经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)对良性前列腺增生(BPH)的治疗效果。方法 有症状的BPH患者100例,分成TUVP组50例,TURP组50例。结果 TUVP组与TURP组术前与术后前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、最大尿流率(MFR)、剩余尿(PVR)比较有显著差异(P<0.01),两组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。术后血红蛋白、血细胞比积和血钠两组比较有显著性差异(P<0.05)。手术时间和前列腺切除体质量两组比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。TUVP组继发出血1例(2.0％),尿道外口狭窄1例(2.0％),阳痿4例(8.0％),尿路刺激症状7例(14.0％),无尿失禁及TRUS发生。TURP组继发出血2例(4.0％),尿道外口狭窄1例(2.0％),阳痿5例(10.0％),TRUS出现1例(2.0％)尿路刺激症状6例(12.0%),无尿失禁发生。结论 TUVP治疗效果确切,达到与TURP完全相同的效果,术中出血明显少于TURP,无TURS发生,是最具潜力的新技术。     

Open radical retropubic prostatectomy gives favourable surgical and functional outcomes after transurethral resection of the prostate

OBJECTIVES

To assess the peri‐ and postoperative outcome of patients treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for prostate cancer and who had previously undergone transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data from a consecutive series of 1760 patients who had RRP between July 2003 and June 2007 at our institution were used to retrospectively match 62 cases (with previous TURP) with the same number of controls (without previous TURP). Matching variables were patient age, body mass index, prostate volume, preoperative total prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, pathological stage, and intraoperative nerve‐sparing procedure. Complete 1‐year follow‐up data were available for all patients. All collected data on surgery and perioperative complications were analysed. Functional outcome data at the 1‐year follow‐up were evaluated by applying an institutional questionnaire. Sexual function was assessed using the abbreviated International Index of Erectile Function‐5 questionnaire, and urinary control was evaluated by defining complete urinary control as no pad usage.

RESULTS

The rate of complete urinary control rate in cases and controls was similar (81% vs 82%). When nerves were spared, 60% (15/25) of patients in either group were capable of sexual intercourse. The overall positive surgical margin rate was insignificantly higher in cases (19% vs 13, P > 0.05). After 1 year of follow‐up the biochemical recurrence rate (PSA >0.04 ng/mL) did not differ significantly in patients who had RRP after TURP vs RRP alone (six of 62, 10%, vs five of 62, 8%; P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

RRP for prostate cancer in patients who have had previous TURP does not result in a higher perioperative complication rate, or a worse functional outcome.     

Incidence of inguinal hernia after prostate surgery: Open radical retropubic prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy versus transurethral resection of the prostate

Our objective was to determine the incidence of inguinal hernia (IH) after surgery for prostatic diseases. Medical records of 395 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP; n  = 155), open simple prostatectomy (OP; n  = 35), or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP; n  = 205) at the Chibaken Saiseikai Narashino Hospital from April 2000 to March 2007 were retrospectively evaluated. The incidence of IH was 23.9% in the RRP group, 18.9% in the OP group, and 2% in the TURP group. Overall, 91.9% in the RRP and 83.3% in the OP group developed an IH within 2 years postoperatively. The laterality of IH after open surgery was mainly on the right side. Subclinical IH were seen in 25% of RRP cases. The existence of subclinical IH was the only significant risk factor for postoperative IH in this analysis. Furthermore, OP and RRP procedures significantly increased the risk of postoperative IH compared with TURP. The hernia-free ratios were significantly lower after RRP and OP than after TURP ( vs RRP: P  < 0.001; vs OP: P  < 0.001). Our findings confirm that a lower abdominal incision itself is associated with postoperative IH in patients undergoing prostate surgery. Attention must be paid to pre-existing subclinical IH through careful preoperative assessment. Patients should be followed for more than 2 years due to the high incidence of postoperative IH.     

Surgical outcomes for men undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate

PURPOSE: We reviewed outcomes for men with a history of transurethral prostate resection who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 26, 1998 and December 2006, 3,061 men underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our institution. A retrospective review showed that 119 had a history of transurethral prostate resection. These men were compared to randomized matched controls with regard to operative and postoperative outcomes. The matching criteria used to randomly select patients were clinical stage, preoperative prostate specific antigen and biopsy Gleason score. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD age in the groups with and without transurethral prostate resection was 66.2 +/- 5.6 and 60.7 +/- 7.0 years, respectively (p <0.01). Mean estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, pathological prostate volume and reoperation rate were statistically similar between the groups. Mean length of stay for the groups with and without transurethral prostate resection was 6.5 +/- 3.0 and 5.29 +/- 2.3 days, respectively (p <0.01). Mean operative time for the groups with and without transurethral prostate resection was 179 +/- 44 and 171 +/- 38 minutes, respectively (p = 0.02). Positive margins were seen in 21.8% and 12.6% of the patients with and without transurethral prostate resection, respectively (p = 0.02). A total of 64 complications were seen in patients with a history of transurethral prostate resection compared to 34 in those without such a history (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We report that patients with a history of transurethral prostate resection who undergo laparoscopic radical prostatectomy have worse outcomes with respect to operative time, length of stay, positive margin rate and overall complication rate. This subset of patients should be made aware of these potential risks before undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

A multi-institutional comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer

To evaluate the pathological stage and margin status of patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). We performed a retrospective analysis of 196 patients who underwent RRP, RPP, and RALP as part of our multi-institution program. Fifty-seven patients underwent RRP, 41 RPP, and 98 RALP. Patient age, preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA), preoperative Gleason score, preoperative clinical stage, pathological stage, postoperative Gleason score, and margin status were reviewed. The three groups had similar preoperative characteristics, except for PSA (8.4, 6.5, and 6.2 ng/ml) for the retropubic, robotic, and perineal approaches. Margins were positive in 12, 24, and 36% of the specimens from RALP, RRP, and RPP, respectively (P = 0.004). The positive margin rates in patients with pT2 tumors were 4, 14, and 19% in the RALP, RRP, and the RPP groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Controlling for age and pre-operative PSA and Gleason score, the rate of positive margins was statistically lower in the RALP versus both the RRP (P = 0.046) and the RPP groups (P = 0.02). In the patients with pT3 tumors, positive margins were observed in 36% of patients undergoing the RALP and 53 and 90% of those patients undergoing the RRP and RPP, respectively (P = 0.015). Controlling for the same factors, the rate of positive margins was statistically lower in the RALP versus the RPP (P = 0.01) but not compared with the RRP patients (P = 0.32). The percentage of positive margins was lower in RALP than in RPP for both pT2 and pT3 tumors. RRP had a higher percentage of positive margins than RALP in the pT2 tumors but not in the pT3 tumors.     

经尿道前列腺切除术与前列腺癌根治术后生化复发的相关性

探讨经尿道前列腺切除术（TURP）与前列腺癌根治术（RP）治疗前列腺癌(PCa)患者术后生化复发（BCR）的相关性。方法 选取2013年1月至2017年12月就诊于本院的480例接受RP治疗的PCa患者。患者定期随访并完善前列腺特异性抗原（PSA）检测,术后连续2次检测PSA≥0.2 ng/mL定义为BCR,采用多因素Cox风险比例回归模型等方法探索TURP对RP术后BCR发生风险的影响。结果 480例RP患者中有400例患者未行过TURP治疗,80例患者既往行TURP治疗。行TURP治疗过的患者BCR发生时间显著缩短,与未行过TURP治疗的患者比较,差异有统计学意义（P=0.016）。有TURP手术史（HR=2.31,95%CI:1.33～4.04,P=0.003）、PSA升高（HR=1.01,95%CI:1.00～1.02,P=0.007）、T3b分期（HR=2.83,95%CI:1.16～6.87,P=0.022）、Gleason评分为7～9分（7分：HR=2.28,95%CI:1.09～4.75,P=0.028;8分：HR=2.90,95%CI: 1.24～6.80,P=0.014;9分：HR=5.55,95%CI:2.32～13.29,P<0.001）是BCR发生的独立危险因素。结论 在PCa患者中,TURP手术史、PSA升高、T3b分期及Gleason评分7～9分的患者在RP术后发生BCR的风险较高。     

Transurethral prostatectomy using Vista bipolar radiofrequency system: comparison with conventional transurethral resection of the prostate

To assess the efficacy and safety of transurethral prostatectomy using Vista system, between 2002 and 2004, patients with symptomatic BPH without suspected cancer were treated using the Vista device. The therapeutic effect was retrospective studied compared with patients who were received by TURP. Bipolar resection using the Vista device exhibits a statistically difference in maximum urinary flow rate, RUV, IPSS and QOL(P < .05) 3 and 6 months after operation, and no transurethral resection syndrome occurred. TURP also exhibits a statistically difference in maximum urinary flow rate, RUV, IPSS and QOL(P < .05), but TURS occurred in 2 patients. Compared with TURP, the Vista device shows a statistically less blood loss (P < .05), and longer operation time in prostate enlarged III(0)(P < .05). The Vista system seems to be effective and safe, and especially fit the patients who have a bigger prostate and high risk factors. It appears to be an effective treatment for BPH. Long-term results should be evaluated.