良性前列腺增生经尿道前列腺电切术后发生附睾炎的风险因素分析

目的：探讨良性前列腺增生（BPH）经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）后发生附睾炎的危险因素。方法：回顾性分析2015年1月至2021年12月我院诊断为BPH并行TURP的826例患者的临床资料,根据术后是否发生附睾炎分为附睾炎组和非附睾炎组。比较两组患者的临床资料,采用单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析,探讨BPH行TURP术后发生附睾炎的危险因素。结果：826例患者中发生附睾炎33例,发生率为4%。两组患者年龄、病程、高血压、糖尿病、术前尿白细胞阳性、前列腺体积、残余尿、IPSS评分、术前前列腺穿刺等指标差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。多因素Logistic回归分析表明前列腺体积[OR=0.117,95%CI:0.019～0.710;P=0.020]、高血压[OR=7.960,95%CI:1.908～33.198;P=0.004]、糖尿病[OR=14.72,95%CI:4.151～52.255;P<0.001]是TURP后发生附睾炎的独立危险因素（P<0.05）。进一步对体积80 ml以上BPH行TURP后发生附睾炎患者的资料进行多因素Logistic回归分析表明...     

经尿道前列腺电切术后膀胱颈挛缩的相关因素分析

目的探讨经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)后膀胱颈挛缩(BNC)的相关因素。方法收集2012年1月至2020年12月于徐州医科大学附属医院泌尿外科行TURP治疗的良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者的临床资料。根据患者术后是否发生膀胱颈口挛缩分为BNC组和非BNC组。运用Logistic回归模型进行单因素和多因素分析, 筛选TURP后BNC发生的独立危险因素。结果本研究共纳入451例BPH患者, 中位随访时间25.3(14.1～104.0)个月, 其中BNC组30例, 非BNC组421例。单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析结果表明, 前列腺体积≤50 ml[比值比(OR)=2.890, 95%可信区间(CI):1.176～7.104, P<0.05], 纤维蛋白原水平≤2.5 g/L(OR=2.246, 95%CI:1.016～4.965, P<0.05)和术后留置尿管时间≥7 d(OR=2.850, 95%CI:1.173～6.926, P<0.05)是TURP后BNC发生的独立危险因素。结论为减少TURP后BNC的发生, 术前应测定纤维蛋白原水平;对于小体积前列腺, 应严...     

经尿道前列腺电切术后发生尿道狭窄及尿失禁的危险因素分析

目的:探讨预测经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)后发生尿道狭窄及尿失禁的危险因素。方法:回顾性研究2018年10月至2022年10月收治的261例因良性前列腺增生(BPH)而接受TURP并具有至少6个月的完整术后随访数据的患者资料,按照术后是否存在尿道狭窄和尿失禁将患者分为尿道狭窄组(n=18)和非尿道狭窄组(n=243)、尿失禁组(n=12)和非尿失禁组(n=249),对比两组患者的年龄、病程、高血压、糖尿病、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、前列腺体积、最大尿流率、术前是否尿潴留、总前列腺特异性抗原水平、术前是否留置尿管状态、术前是否合并尿道感染、手术时间、术后留置尿管时间、术后尿管牵引时间等,采用单因素和多因素Logistic回归性分析来筛选独立的预测因素。结果:TURP术后尿道狭窄和尿失禁发生率分别是6.9%和4.6%;多因素logistic回归分析发现,合并糖尿病(OR=9.526,95%CI:2.824～32.127,P<0.01),术前合并尿道感染(OR=6.500,95%CI:1.513～27.925,P=0.012),术后留置尿管时间(OR=2.063,95%CI:1...     

经尿道前列腺电切术对勃起功能影响的研究

目的:分析经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)对勃起功能的影响程度及引起术后勃起功能障碍的各种 因素。方法:随访257例行TURP术患者,按年龄、前列腺切除重量、术前性功能状况、术后是否有低钠血症和术 中前列腺包膜是否穿破五个因素分别比较其作用下的术前术后性功能改变情况。并采用电切术切除犬前列腺组 织,观察其电切术后前列腺损伤深度及标志勃起神经功能的指标(一氧化氮活性),评估电切术对勃起神经损伤程 度的影响。结果:术中前列腺切除重量大小与术后是否有低钠血症发生对TURP术后勃起功能障碍的发生无明 显关系(P>0.05)。>65岁者与≤65岁者、术前性功能不完全者与术前性功能完全者、术中穿破前列腺包膜与 包膜完整者的三因素中,前者术后勃起功能障碍发生率均比后者高(P<0.05)。实验研究显示电切术损伤仅局 限于前列腺本身,最深仅为1.6mm。阴茎海绵体一氧化氮活性测定,术前术后差别无统计学意义。结论:年龄、 术前性功能状况、术中是否穿破前列腺包膜三因素对TURP术后勃起功能障碍影响明显。实验研究显示电切术 损伤仅局限于前列腺本身。经尿道前列腺电切术只要操作规范,手术本身并不引起术后勃起功能障碍。     

良性前列腺增生症患者经尿道前列腺电切术术后复发再手术危险因素分析

目的 回顾四川大学华西医院2002年11月 至2007年11月因良性前列腺增生症(BPH)入院行经尿道前列腺电切术(TuRP)治疗的患者的临床资料,综合分析BPH患者TURP术后复发再手术的危险因素.方法 回顾1471例行TURP治疗的BPH患者的临床资料,其中41例术后复发再次入院手术治疗.资料包括:患者的下尿路症状、发病年龄、手术时年龄、前列腺大小、尿流动力学资料、血清前列腺特异抗原、血常规、尿常规、血清肌酐、手术切除前列腺组织重量、手术持续时间、住院时间、手术者年资及病理标本炎症分级评分等.结果 单因素统计分析:患者发病年龄(t=2.292,P=0.086),术前前列腺大小(t=-1.987,P=0.047),尿不尽症状发生率(x~2=9.240,P=0.002),术前膀胱残余尿量(t=2.181,P=0.030)及手术者年资高低情况(Z=10.13,P=0.0015)两组资料间差异有统计学意义.多因素Logistic回归分析:按α=0.20水准纳入单因素分析中有意义因素作为自变量,以是否复发作为因变量,引入非条件Logistic回归方程.分别采用向前及向后逐步回归法,筛选出的危险因素为:病理标本炎症分级评分、手术者年资、尿不尽、血清肌酐含量、发病年龄,其中病理标本炎症分级评分(OR=0.905)、尿不尽(OR=0.557)、手术者年资(OR=0.393)有显著影响.结论 BPH患者TURP术后复发可能危险因素为:手术者年资低,发病年龄小,无尿不尽症状,前列腺大,残余尿量少,病理标本炎症分级评分低.     

经尿道前列腺电切术后初次拔管失败原因及危险因素分析

目的:分析经尿道前列腺电切(TURP)术后患者初次拔管失败原因及相关危险因素。方法:搜集2015年6月至2018年5月行TURP 285例BPH患者临床资料,按初次拔管后排尿情况分为拔管成功组和拔管失败组,分析可能影响拔管失败的危险因素。结果:285例患者中,拔管成功组246例,拔管失败组39例。拔管失败组中15例拔管后即刻出现排尿困难,13例拔管后出现严重尿路刺激症状,7例拔管1个月内出现大量肉眼血尿,4例出现尿管拔除后1个月仍有尿失禁。将两组有统计学差异的指标进行Logistics多因素分析,结果显示IPSS评分(OR=5.106,P=0.013)、术前有无合并尿路感染(OR=3.835,P=0.041),前列腺体积(OR=4.160,P=0.011)、导尿管牵拉时间(OR=4.051,P=0.017)是初次拔管失败的独立危险因子。结论:TURP术后拔管失败的常见原因有术后早期尿潴留、术后尿路感染、术后继发性出血及尿失禁。     

经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术对阴茎勃起功能的影响(附100例报告)

目的:比较经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)和经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术(PKRP)治疗BPH后对患者阴茎勃起功能的影响,并探讨各自相关影响因素。方法:按1∶1比例随机分为TURP组和PKRP组,用勃起功能国际问卷(IIEF25)和Rigiscan硬度仪评测患者术前术后性功能变化;记录IIEF25评分、患者年龄、切除前列腺大小、手术时间、术中出血量、包膜损伤、逆行射精、电切综合征(TURS)等可能影响性功能的因素进行变量逻辑回归分析。结果:TURP组术后6个月有9例(18.0%)、PKRP组有5例(10.0%)发生阴茎勃起功能障碍(ED),术后ED与患者年龄、术前IIEF25评分、逆行射精及包膜损伤有显著相关性。结论:TURP、PKRP术对患者性功能均有不同程度的影响,而PKRP对性功能的影响较轻微;影响术后性功能比较显著的因素为患者年龄、包膜损伤、逆行射精和术前IIEF25评分。     

前列腺、精囊

耻骨后解剖性根治性前列腺切除术的技术改进;同期手术治疗良性前列腺增生并膀胱结石27例报告;良性前列腺增生症与阴茎勃起功能障碍的相关性研究;伽玛刀治疗高危前列腺增生症的临床应用;经尿道前列腺电切术患者转开放手术的危险因素分析     

前列腺动脉栓塞术与经尿道前列腺电切术治疗前列腺增生对比研究

目的对比分析前列腺动脉栓塞术(PAE)与经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗前列腺增生的优缺点,为合理选择手术方式提供依据。方法回顾分析2012年1月至2017年6月在本院收治200例前列腺增生患者临床资料,其中126例行TURP术(TURP组),74例行PAE术(PAE组),对比两组术后疼痛评分、住院时间、并发症发生率、IPSS评分、QOL评分、前列腺体积、最大尿流率及残余尿量。结果PAE组较TURP组术后疼痛症状轻,下床活动早,住院时间明显缩短,术中出血少,并发症发生率低,术后1个月TURP组国际前列腺症状评分、生活质量评分、前列腺体积、最大尿流率、残余尿量优于PAE组(P<0.05),术后6个月差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论两种手术方式均安全有效,但各有优缺点,术者应该根据患者病情及需求选择合适的手术方式。     

3种术式治疗高危大体积前列腺增生的比较

目的比较耻骨上前列腺切除术(suprapubic prostatectomy,SP)、经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of the prostate,TURP)与经尿道前列腺剜除电切术(transurethral enucleation and resection of the prostate,TUERP)治疗高危大体积前列腺增生患者的临床疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析我院2005年7月~2014年3月手术治疗137例高危大体积前列腺增生患者的临床资料,以手术时期先后分别行SP(n=41)、TURP(n=42)和TUERP术(n=54)。比较3组手术时间、术后住院时间、腺体切除重量、术中出血量及术后国际前列腺症状评分、生活质量评分和膀胱残余尿等指标,并记录不良事件发生情况。结果 137例手术均成功。手术时间SP组TUERP组TURP组[(69.7±10.2)min vs.(80.9±16.6)min vs.(100.7±19.0)min,F=41.306,P=0.000]。腺体切除重量TUERP组和SP组TURP组[(93.7±21.9)g vs.(101.9±26.6)g vs.(80.0±18.5)g,F=10.107,P=0.000]。术中失血量TUERP组SP组和TURP组(F=6.017,P=0.003)。术后住院时间TUERP组和TURP组SP组[(8.6±1.1)d vs.(8.9±1.4)d vs.(13.1±2.8)d,F=80.727,P=0.000]。3组术后3个月国际前列腺症状评分、生活质量评分和膀胱残余尿等指标差异均无显著性(P0.05)。结论 SP、TURP与TUERP治疗高危大体积前列腺增生均安全、有效。TUERP具有切除腺体彻底、手术时间短、出血少、术后恢复快的优点。     

ADVERSE EVENTS AFTER PROSTATECTOMY IN VICTORIAN PUBLIC HOSPITALS

Background : A retrospective analysis of data from the Victorian Inpatient Minimum Database (VIMD) was conducted to analyse trends in prostatectomy rates in Victorian public acute-care hospitals from 1989/90 to 1994/95. The study also sought to identify predictors of adverse events (AE) after prostatectomy, and to compare in-hospital complications between open prostatectomy and transurethral resection of prostate (TURP). Methods : All patients who had undergone any prostatectomy were identified according to the relevant ICD-9-CM procedure codes (60.2–60.4) documented in the VIMD. The main outcome measures, AE, were identified using the ICD-9-CM supplementary classification of external cause of injury (E850–858, E870–876, E878–879, E930–949). The variables used as predictors were year of prostatectomy, type of admission (planned, emergency), location of the hospital (rural, metropolitan), type of procedure (TURP, open), and teaching status of the hospital. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) were based on univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Results : The rates of prostatectomies have significantly increased over the 6-year study period (P for trend < 0.0001). The percentage of AE after prostatectomy increased simultaneously from 6.1 to 12.9% (P < 0.0001). During the same period, the in-hospital mortality rate after prostatectomy decreased from 1.2 to 0.5%, and length of stay decreased from 10.3 to 6.1 days (Kruskal–Wallis P < 0.0001). The significant predictors of outcome were year of prostatectomy (P for trend < 0.0001), emergency admissions (OR = 1.57; P < 0.0001), metropolitan hospitals (OR = 0.81; P= 0.0003), non-teaching hospitals (OR = 0.78; P < 0.0001), and open prostatectomy (OR = 1.52; P= 0.04). More in-hospital complications were associated with open prostatectomy than with TURP. Conclusions : The rise in AE rate after prostatectomy is unlikely to reflect poor quality of care, because in the same period there was a significant decrease in in-hospital mortality after prostatectomy. A more likely explanation is heightened awareness of AE with a lower threshold for reporting such events. Important factors other than variations in quality of care can result in an increase in AE. Hence the reported increase should be interpreted with caution before attempting to conclude that changes in clinical practice could have a direct impact on these rates.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients following transurethral resection of the prostate

OBJECTIVES: Previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was reported to impose difficulties during open radical prostatectomy. We describe our experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) following transurethral resection of the prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The series included 35 patients: 22 patients underwent transperitoneal LRP (tpLRP) and 13 underwent extraperitoneal LRP (epLRP). The minimal interval between TURP and laparoscopy was 3 months. Patients' charts were reviewed for their preoperative characteristics, intraoperative difficulties and complications, and outcome. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 67.5+/-4.4 years. 12 patients were cT1a,b and 23 patients were cT1c/T2. Twenty-two patients underwent tpLRP and 13 underwent epLRP. No statistical difference was found between the preoperative characteristics and the pathological results of cT1a,b vs. T1c/cT2 patients, or tpLRP vs. epLRP patients. Thirty-three procedures were completed laparoscopically and 2 were converted to open surgery. Perioperative complications included two leaking anastomoses, prolonged lymph drainage in 1 case, atelectasis (n=1) and duodenal ulcer (n=1). Twelve positive margins were noted, half of them in pT2 tumors. The mean follow-up was 28.5 months. Twenty-five of 35 patients had more than 12 months of follow-up. Among them 19 patients were completely continent (76%) and 6 (24%), reported mild stress incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Although LRP following TURP is sometimes more technically difficult, simple modifications in the operative strategy help facilitate surgery. LRP following TURP favorably compares to open radical prostatectomy after TURP and laparoscopy in non-TURP patients.     

Trends in repeat prostatectomy after surgery for benign prostate disease: application of record linkage to healthcare outcomes

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of repeat prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a population-based cohort of 19 598 men in Western Australia treated by transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or open prostatectomy over a 16-year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Western Australian Health Services Research Linked Database was used to extract all hospital morbidity data, death records and prostate cancer registrations for men who had prostate surgery for BPH in 1980-95. The cumulative incidence of first repeat prostatectomy calculated using the actuarial life-table and incidence-rate ratios of the first repeat prostatectomy, comparing TURP and open prostatectomy, were obtained using Cox regression. RESULTS: The cases comprised 18 464 TURPs and 1134 open prostatectomies, from which there were 1095 subsequent repeat prostatectomies. After adjustment for calendar time, age and admission type, the incidence rate of the first repeat prostatectomy was up to 2.30 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.27) after initial TURP than for initial open prostatectomy. The absolute risks at 8 years for TURP was 6.6%, and was 3.3% for open prostatectomy. CONCLUSION: The absolute risk of a repeat prostatectomy for TURP and open prostatectomy were consistent with the best reported international experience. There was evidence that the risk in 1990-95 had declined compared with earlier periods, despite a shift towards more closed procedures. The differential risks of repeat prostatectomy should be explained to patients and considered in the development of clinical guidelines, notwithstanding the advantages of TURP over open prostatectomy in terms of surgical morbidity and cost.     

Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in a matched-pair analysis

Abstract Purpose: To determine whether previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compromises the surgical outcome and pathologic findings in patient who underwent either radical robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) or open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) after TURP, because TURP is reported to complicate radical prostatectomy and there are conflicting data. Patients and Methods: From July 2008 to July 2010, 357 patients underwent RALP. Of these, 19 (5.3%) patients had undergone previous TURP. Operative and perioperative data of patients were compared with those of matched controls selected from a database of 616 post-RRP patients. Matching criteria were age, clinical stage, the level of preoperative prostate-specific-antigen, the biopsy Gleason score, the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score, and prostate volume assessed during transrectal ultrasonography. All RRP and RALP procedures were performed by experienced surgeons. Results: Mean time to prostatectomy was 67.4 months in the RALP group and 53.1 months in the RRP group. Mean operative time was 217±51.9 minutes for RALP and 174±57.7 minutes for RRP (P<0.05). The overall positive surgical margin rate was 15.8% in both groups (pT(2) tumors: 10.5% for RALP and 5.3% for RRP; P=1.0). Mean estimated blood loss was 333±144?mL in RALP patients and 1103±636?mL in RRP patients (P<0.001). The difference between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels was 3.22±0.98?g/dL for RALP and 5.85±1.95?g/dL for RRP (P=0.0002). The RALP and RRP groups also differed in terms of hospital stay (8.58±1.17 vs 11.74±5.22 days; P=0.0037), duration of catheterization (7.95±5.69 vs 11.78±6.97 days; P=0.0016), postoperative complications according to the Clavien classification system (6 vs 15 patients; P=0.0027), and transfusion rate (0% vs 10.5%; P<0.001). Conclusion: RALP offers advantages over open radical prostatectomy after previous surgery. Although both techniques are associated with adequate surgical outcomes, RALP appeared to be preferable in our population of patients with previous prostate surgery.     

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。     

良性前列腺增生并发腹股沟疝同期手术的不同术式比较

目的 :探讨良性前列腺增生 (BPH)并发腹股沟疝的同期手术的最佳术式。方法 :对同期手术治疗的4 1例BPH并发腹股沟疝患者 ,经尿道前列腺电切术 (TURP)加疝修补术 2 1例 (第 1组 ) ;耻骨上V形切口行耻骨上经膀胱前列腺切除术 (SPP)加疝修补术 6例 (第 2组 ) ;下腹部纵行切口行SPP加腹膜前疝修补术 10例 (第 3组 ) ;下腹部纵行切口行SPP加腹股沟斜切口疝修补术 4例 (第 4组 )。结果 :随访 2个月～ 5年 ,第 3组有 3例疝复发 ,其它各组未见疝复发。手术切口感染及其它手术并发症在各组中均未发生。术后住院时间第 1组明显低于其它各组 (P <0 .0 1)。结论 :在BPH并发腹股沟疝的同期手术中 ,疝修补术加TURP应为首选 ,如BPH需开放手术 ,采用耻骨上V形切口行SPP加疝修补术为简单有效的术式     

BPH术后复发原因分析

目的:探讨BPH术后复发的原因,为预防和治疗提供依据,降低再手术率。方法:回顾性分析9例因BPH行开放手术后复发病例的临床资料。1例为中叶增生,其余8例为侧叶增生。结果:所有患者行手术治疗,其中开放4例,TURP5例。术后尿路梗阻症状解除,随访者未再复发。结论:BPH开放手术术中腺叶遗留和术后小增生结节的继续增长,TURP尖部切除不够,均是BPH术后复发的原因。     

Blood loss during radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship to morphologic features on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging

Objectives. To determine whether morphologic features at preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are related to intraoperative blood loss during radical retropubic prostatectomy.Methods. Endorectal MRI was performed in 143 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer before radical retropubic prostatectomy. Two independent readers rated the prominence of the periprostatic veins (on the basis of number and size) at four anatomic sites on a 3-point scale. Other features analyzed were prostate volume and interspinous diameter.Results. A prominence of the anterior and posterior apical periprostatic veins was positively associated with blood loss (correlation coefficient = 0.22 and 0.17 and P <0.01 and <0.05, respectively). Blood loss was not related to prostate volume (correlation coefficient = 0.02, P = 0.8) or interspinous diameter (correlation coefficient = 0.01, P = 0.9). The site-specific scores of both readers demonstrated positive agreement, with Pearson’s correlation coefficients of 0.51 to 0.65 (P <0.01).Conclusions. A marked prominence of the apical periprostatic veins on preoperative MRI is associated with greater intraoperative blood loss during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Other morphologic factors appear unrelated to the amount of intraoperative blood loss.