两种经尿道前列腺切除术治疗良性前列腺增生症的疗效比较

目的比较经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）与经尿道双极等离子前列腺切除术（PKRP）治疗良性前列腺增生症（BPH）的优缺点。方法分别采用TURP（357例）、PKRP（326例）治疗BPH,观察两组患者手术前后国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOLS）、最大尿流率（MFR）、残余尿（RUV）的改善情况以及术后并发症的发生情况。结果两种术式患者术后IPSS、QOLS、MFR、RUV均得到显著改善,组间差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。对Ⅰ～Ⅱ度前列腺增生,两组术式手术时间无差异;对Ⅲ度前列腺增生,TURP组手术时间短于PKRP组（P〈0．01）。两组术式术中切除前列组织重量、术中出血及术后主要观察指标差异均无显著性。TURP组3例发生电切综合症,2例因前列腺包膜穿孔中转开放手术,而PKRP组无上述情况发生。PKRP组术后并发症少于TURP组。结论TURP及PKRP均为治疗BPH的有效手段,PKRP较之TURP术中更为安全,手术后并发症较少,但手术时间较长。     

经尿道前列腺电切术与经尿道双极等离子前列腺腔内剜除术的临床效果及其对患者性功能影响的对比分析

目的 比较经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）与经尿道双极等离子前列腺腔内剜除术（TPKEP）治疗前列腺增生患者的临床效果,并分析其对患者性功能的影响。方法 选取我院2016年1月至2018年1月86例前列腺增生患者为研究对象,将实施经尿道双极等离子前列腺腔内剜除术的作为观察对象（TPKEP组,n=44）,将行经尿道前列腺电切术的患者作为对照组（TURP组,n=42）,收集两组患者的围手术数据和术后性功能状况资料并进行比较。结果 TPKEP组患者手术时间65.4±15.8 min、术中出血量231.3±77.5 mL及导管留置时间5.5±0.6 d,TURP组患者手术时间76.8±16.9 min、术中出血量346.2±81.4 mL及导管留置时间6.0±0.7 d,两组间的差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。TPKEP组患者术后勃起功能障碍、逆行射精发生率低于TURP组患者（P<0.05）;两组患者术后射精痛和性欲下降的差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 与TURP相比,TPKEP术中出血量较少,术后对BPH患者性功能的影响较小。     

Comparative study of transurethral laser prostatectomy versus transurethral electroresection for benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold standard treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Recently, less invasive transurethral laser prostatectomy, such as visual laser ablation (VLAP) or interstitial laser coagulation (ILCP), have been developed. Herein, we investigated the efficacy of VLAP and ILCP compared to TURP. METHODS: A total of 80 patients with BPH were treated: 20 patients by VLAP, 30 patients by ILCP and 30 patients by TURP. All patients were followed up for 12 months after their operations. Treatment outcomes were evaluated by four different criteria: (i) the International Prostatic Symptom Score (I-PSS), (ii) the maximum flow rate (Qmax), (iii) postvoided residual urine volume before treatment and one, three, six and 12 months after treatment, and (iv) prostatic volume before operation and three and six months postoperatively. RESULTS: The I-PSS, Qmax and residual urine volume were significantly improved compared to baseline levels and the improvement continued for 12 months in the three groups: for I-PSS (P<0.001 in the VLAP group and P<0.0001 in the ILCP and TURP groups), Qmax (P<0.001 in the VLAP and ILCP groups, and P<0.0001 in the TURP group), residual urine volume (P<0.01 in the VLAP group and P<0.0001 in the ILCP and TURP groups). Significant reduction of the prostatic volume was recorded only in the ILCP and TURP groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Visual laser ablation and ILCP can be good alternative treatments for BPH. Visual laser ablation provides good outcomes in patients with small-sized BPH and with risk factors such as heart disease or anticoagulation therapy.     

三种经尿道术式治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效比较

目的比较经尿道前列腺汽化术（TUVP）、经尿道前列腺汽化切割术（TUEVAP）、经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）3种手术方法治疗良性前列腺增生（BPH）的疗效及并发症。方法先后分别采用TUVP、TUEVAP、TURP治疗BPH患者1298例。TUVP组204例,年龄53-86岁（平均71岁）,前列腺重量21-125g（平均51g）。TUEVAP组256例,年龄56-91岁（平均73岁）,前列腺重量23-146g（平均53g）。TURP组838例,年龄59-97岁（平均75岁）,前列腺重量20-245g（平均56g）。3组病例术前前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOL）、最大尿流率（Qmax）、剩余尿量（PVR）比较差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。比较3组手术时间、术中出血量、术后尿管留置时间、住院天数、术后并发症发生率及效果。结果三组中除TUEVAP组最初1例合并膀胱结石采用大力钳碎石时损伤膀胱壁而中转手术外,均手术成功。TUVP、TUEVAP、TURP组平均手术时间分别为61（30-180）min、63（20-240）min、50（20-270）min,组间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。3组术中平均出血量分别为87（20-150）ml、82（20-200）ml、86（20-300）ml,组间比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;3组手术后平均留置尿管时间分别为5.4d、5.4d、4.1d;术后平均住院时间分别为6.7d、6.5d、4.5d（P〈0.05）。TUVP、TUEVAP组术后拔管不能排尿、尿道狭窄、继发性出血、暂时性尿失禁、尿路感染的发生率明显高于TURP组（P〈0.05）。术后3个月随访,3组IPSS、PVR、QOL均较手术前明显下降,Qmax均较手术前明显增加,但组间比较差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论 TUVP,TUEVAP,TURP治疗BPH均有明确的临床效果,TURP术后并发症明显少于TUVP、TUEVAP,TURP是熟练者快捷、高效的选择,仍然是治疗BPH的＂金标准＂。     

A multicenter retrospective study of transurethral prostate split for benign prostate hyperplasia

BackgroundTransurethral split of the prostate (TUSP) is effective in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, there is still a lack of research focusing on the optimal target population for TUSP. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of TUSP in patients with different prostate volumes or ages.MethodsThe study was a multicenter retrospective study. The outcomes of TUSP in BPH patients with different prostate volumes or different ages were compared. A total of 439 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to prostate volume, with a cut-off value of 50 mL. Similarly, the cut-off value for the age groups was 70 years. Baseline patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Follow-up was performed at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 73.4 years, and the mean prostate volume was 51.2 mL. At 12-month follow-up after TUSP treatment, the patients’ International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) scores, and postvoid residual (PVR) volumes decreased significantly, while peak urinary flow rate (Qmax) increased significantly. Intraoperative hemoglobin (Hb) reduction was significantly lower in the small volume group than in the large volume group. The incidence of postoperative urinary urgency and transient incontinence was lower in the small volume group. IPSS score, PVR, and Qmax in the small volume group showed more remarkable changes at several time points compared to the preoperative period. Postoperative pain scores were higher in the small volume group than in the large volume group. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of long-term complications. The younger group showed greater variation in PVR and Qmax at some time points but less variation in QoL than the older group.ConclusionsTUSP is overall safe and effective in treating BPH. This study showed differences in the outcomes of TUSP in treating different prostate volumes or ages of BPH patients. The optimal surgical approach for BPH patients might be selected clinically based on a combination of prostate volume or patient age.     

Comparative early results of the sandwich technique and transurethral electroresection in benign prostatic hyperplasia

No study has yet reported the comparative results of the sandwich technique and transurethral electroresection in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Thirty patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia were divided into two groups, each consisting of 15 patients. The first group underwent the sandwich technique (transurethral electrovaporization-transurethral electroresection-transurethral electrovaporization) and the second group had transurethral electroresection alone (TURP). Preoperatively all patients underwent a digital examination and the determination of prostatic volume by transrectal ultrasonography, and a symptom score (IPSS), the maximal flow rate (Q (max)), post-void residual urine (PVR). Six months after the operation, all the variables were remeasured and the values compared with those before treatment and between the groups. The improvements in symptom score, residual urine and maximum flow rate were slightly better after the sandwich technique than after TURP but the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. Additionally, lower amounts of irrigant solution were used (P>0.05) and operative time was shorter in the sandwich group (P>0.05). Although the duration of catheterization in the sandwich group was lower than that of the TURP group (1.6 and 2.26 days respectively (P<0.05)), three patients (20%) required catheterization. Although the improvements in the objective parameters 6 months after, early indications showed that the sandwich technique results were almost the same as after TURP. There might be several advantages of this technique, particularly the fact that no blood transfusion is required and earlier removal of urethral catheter.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diesases (2001) 4, 242-244.     

经尿道前列腺气化切割联合电切术治疗前列腺增生症

1998年7月至2002年7月,本组采用经尿道前列腺气化切割(TUVP)联合电切术(TURP)治疗前列腺增生症(BPH)116例,疗效满意。报告如下。1资料与方法1.1一般资料:本组116例,年龄57～87岁,平均71.5岁。均有典型的前列腺增生症状,并经直肠指检、B超和尿流率测定明确诊断。并发冠心病、心律失常15例,高血压22例,并发慢支肺气肿12例,糖尿病5例,胃癌术后2例。其中86例因尿潴留入院,另30例残余尿为100～500ml。最大尿流率(Qmax)平均6.8ml/s,术前IPSS评分平均为29.5分。按照Rous标准诊断为前列腺Ⅰ度增生24例,Ⅱ度增生54例,Ⅲ度增生28例,Ⅳ度增生10…     

Caudal epidural anesthesia for transurethral resection of benign hyperplasia of prostate

Caudal epidural anesthesia was used as a basic method of anesthesia in 300 elderly patients for transurethral resection of prostate adenoma. There were no complications during and after operation in spite of frequent concomitant diseases in these patients.     

Randomized comparison of transurethral electroresection and holmium: YAG laser vaporization for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of holmium:YAG laser vaporization v transurethral electroresection (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients were randomized. Two laser procedures (60 to 80 W) were performed for one TURP. Symptom Score, peak flow rate, potency, and ejaculation status were measured at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 75 minutes for laser and 56 minutes for TURP (P = 0.0407). With a mean laser energy delivered of 103.6 kJ, hemostasis was satisfactory during vaporization. The mean catheterization time was 1.7 and 2.1 days in the laser and TURP group, respectively. For the laser and TURP groups, the mean AUA Score improved from 20 preoperatively to 7 and from 24.1 to 5, respectively, at 12 months. The mean peak flow increased from 8.4 to 19.5 mL/sec and from 7.6 to 16.8 ml/sec, respectively, at 12 months. These results are not statistically different. No significant initial dysuria occurred. No significant difference between the groups appeared in potency or ejaculatory status during the follow-up. One patient in the laser group (Day 5) and two in the TURP group (2nd and 6th month) had to undergo a second procedure to relieve obstruction. CONCLUSION: Although taking slightly longer to accomplish, holmium:YAG laser vaporization of BPH provides early results very similar to those of TURP with a shorter catheterization time and no initial dysuria or pain.     

高龄BPH患者经尿道手术治疗安全性及有效性探讨

目的 探讨80岁以上高龄前列腺增生症患者经尿道手术的安全性及有效性.方法 回顾性分析1999年12月至2009年10月间采用经尿道手术治疗高龄前列腺增生症患者的临床资料.结果 63例80岁以上患者均顺利完成经尿道手术,术中患者生命体征平稳.平均手术时间53min,切除前列腺组织平均51g,术中5例输血300ml,3例术中发生轻度电切综合征,均安全地度过围手术期.其中的53例患者随访1～62月,IPSS评分较术前平均下降17.5分,QOL平均下降3.6分,Qmax平均增加9.2ml/s,残余尿量平均下降75.3ml.结论 高龄BPH患者,只要加强围手术期的处理,经尿道手术仍是一种安全可行、出血少、并发症少、恢复快、疗效明显的一种治疗选择.     

经尿道前列腺电切术治疗前列腺增生症540例的体会

目的 总结我科在近9年来经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）治疗前列腺增生症的体会。方法对1999年6月～2008年10月收治的540例前列腺增生症（BPH）患者行TURP手术治疗的临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果本组病例的手术时间是30～200min,平均（54．0±20．4）min,术中输血0-800mL,切除前列腺组织15～100g,平均（38．5±18．1）g。术后持续膀胱冲洗3．5～5．0d,留置导尿管5～7d,无真性尿失禁,无术中及术后死亡。5例术中转开放手术。18例术中发生经尿道电切综合征（TURS）。出院后2周～3个月内再次手术3例,1～8年再次手术5例。结论TURP治疗BPH具有出血少、恢复快、疗效佳、治愈率高等优点,是治疗BPH患者的首选方法。     

经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切与TURP治疗BPH的疗效比较

目的:比较经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术(PKRP)与经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗BPH的临床疗效及安全性。方法:将164例BPH患者随机均分成PKRP组和TURP组,比较两组术后最大尿流率(Qmax)、剩余尿量(PVR)、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)等指标。结果:PKRP组72例、TURP组76例获得随访,随访时间3个月。PKRP组尿道外口狭窄2例,膀胱颈挛缩1例,TURP组尿道外口狭窄6例,膀胱颈挛缩4例;PKRP组Qmax为(22.6±4.6)ml/s,PVR为(8.6±4.4)ml,IPSS为(4.6±1.2)分,QOL为(1.2±0.6)分;TURP组分别为(24.2±4.2)ml/s、(9.6±3.6)ml、(4.4±1.0)分、(1.4±0.8)分,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:PKRP与TURP治疗BPH疗效相近,但PKRP平均手术时间、术中出血量、围手术期及术后并发症较TURP明显减少,手术安全性高,有良好的应用前景。     

经尿道激光治疗前列腺增生症的远期疗效观察

目的　评价经尿道激光治疗前列腺增生症的远期疗效。　方法　回顾分析 1993年 11月～ 1999年 9月经尿道激光治疗前列腺增生症 72例 ,随访 3年～ 9年 ,平均 7 0年。　结果　手术前后国际前列腺症状评分 (IPSS)分别为 (2 7 5±2 6 )分和 (2 0 7± 4 2 )分 (t=11 6 8,P <0 0 0 1) ,生活质量指数 (QOL)分别为 (4 5± 0 6 )分和 (3 9± 0 8)分 (t=5 0 1,P <0 0 0 1) ,最大尿流率 (MFR)分别为 (6 9± 2 7)ml s和 (11 8± 4 1)ml s(t=- 8 5 2 ,P <0 0 0 1) ,前列腺体积分别为 (5 2 4± 5 2 )克和 (5 1 2± 6 7)克 (t=1 2 0 ,P >0 0 5 ) ,残余尿量 (PVR)分别为 (71 5± 4 6 2 )ml和 (4 2 3± 2 8 6 )ml(t=4 5 6 ,P <0 0 0 1)。 39例 (5 4 2 % )病人主观疗效评价满意。　结论　经尿道激光治疗前列腺增生症的远期治疗效果满意。     

经尿道前列腺电切术治疗大体积前列腺增生的临床体会

目的 探讨经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗大体积前列腺增生的疗效并分享临床体会.方法 回顾性分析本院采用TURP手术治疗45例前列腺重量超过100g的前列腺增生患者的临床资料并总结手术经验.结果 45例患者手术均获成功,IPSS评分由术前27.3±2.7降为9.5±3.3,QOL评分由5.2±0.7降为1.8±0.9,Qmax由6.4±1.4mL/s上升为16.1±2.8mL/s,PVR由128±63.2mL降为38.4±16.3mL.随访时间6～18个月,平均12个月.结论 TURP治疗大前列腺是安全有效的,术者对解剖结构的熟悉程度、手术操作的精细程度是减少手术损伤和术后并发症的关键.     

经尿道前列腺选择性绿激光手术与经尿道前列腺电切术的疗效比较

目的评价经尿道前列腺选择性绿激光手术（greenlight photoselective vaporization of prostate,PVP）与经尿道前列腺电切术（transurethral prostatectomy,TURP）的临床疗效。方法将178例良性前列腺增生（benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH）患者随机分为两组,95例行PVP术（PVP组）,83例行TURP术（TURP组）,比较两种术式的平均手术时间、术中出血量、输血量、近期疗效及并发症等情况。结果 PVP组和TURP组平均手术时间分别为（47.4±5.1）min和（61.7±6.2）min,前者显著低于后者,PVP组术中出血量、输血量、术后膀胱冲洗时间、留置尿管时间及住院时间均显著少于TURP组,PVP组近期并发症发生率明显小于TURP组,两组术后前列腺国际症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOL）、最大尿流率、剩余尿量较术前均有显著改善。结论 PVP是一种安全有效的治疗BPH的理想微创术式,具有手术时间短、创伤小、出血少、恢复快、并发症发生率低等特点。     

高龄前列腺增生患者经尿道电切汽化术的麻醉

目的：探讨高龄高危前列腺增生患者经尿道前列腺电切汽化切割术麻醉的方法及其安全性。方法：将80例75～94岁的患者随机分为腰-硬联合麻醉（combined spinal-epidural anesthesia,CSEA）组和硬膜外麻醉（epidural anesthesia,EA）组,各40例,观察各组麻醉起效时间,阻滞平面,镇痛和肌松效果,局麻药和静脉辅助药的用量及术中SAP,DAP,HR,RR,SpO2的变化,术后随访有无头痛、恶心、呕吐等副作用。结果：CSEA组比EA组麻醉起效快,镇痛及肌松效果好。局麻药和辅助药用量少（P〈0.01）,术中血流动力学变化及术后随访两组无显著差异。结论：CSEA用于高龄高危前列腺增生患者经尿道电切汽化术的麻醉安全有效,围手术期个体化处理及麻醉操作和用药是关键。     

剥离式经尿道前列腺切除术与经尿道前列腺电切术治疗良性前列腺增生的比较研究

目的:比较经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)与使用专用前列腺增生腺体剥离器行剥离式经尿道前列腺切除术(剥离式TURP,TUERP)治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的疗效与安全性。方法:BPH患者630例,均具备手术指征,随机分为TURP组(305例)和剥离式TURP组(325例)。术前两组年龄、前列腺体积、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、最大尿流率(Qmax)数值比较,差异无统计学意义(P均0.05)。记录两组手术时间、手术切除率、术后需要持续膀胱冲洗时间、术后生活质量评分(QOL)、手术并发症数据,进行统计学分析。结果:手术后的资料分析显示,TUERP手术切除率优于TURP组的手术切除率[(60.1±12.3)%vs(47.0±13.3)%,P0.05)];TUERP组平均手术时间比TURP组短[(40.4±14.2)min vs(57.9±15.9)min,P0.05];术后冲洗时间较短[(2.2±1.1)d vs(2.7±0.6)d,P0.05]。TUERP组手术前后血清Na+和血红蛋白浓度变化无统计学意义,TURP组血清Na+和血红蛋白浓度变化有统计学意义[血Na+:(141.2±3.5)mmol/L vs(136.9±4.7)mmol/L,P0.01,血红蛋白:(137.6±8.8)g/L vs(124.8±9.6)g/L,P0.01]。术后3个月,两组的IPSS评分、QOL评分、Qmax评分均较术前有显著改善(P均0.01),组间比较无显著性差异。(P0.05)。结论:剥离式TURP治疗BPH和TURP比较,具有手术时间短、手术切除率高、术中出血少、术后恢复快、并发症少等优点,在临床上有良好的应用前景。     

经尿道前列腺汽化电切术和等离子电切术治疗良性前列腺增生症的比较研究

目的 比较经尿道前列腺汽化电切(TUVP)和经尿道前列腺等离子电切术(PKRP)两种方法治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的安全性和有效性.方法 TUVP组133例,PKRP组113例,对两者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后膀胱冲洗时间、术中电切综合征(TURS)发生率、术后国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流率(Qmax)和剩余尿量(PVR)以及术后并发症的发生率进行比较.结果 两组患者术前一般情况比较无统计学差异(p＞0.05),术后I-PSS、QOL、Qmax、RUV与术前比较均有显著性差异(p＜0.01),但两组间比较无显著性差异(p＞0.05).手术时间PKRP组明显长于TUVP组.术中出血量、术后膀胱冲洗时间PKRP组明显小于TUVP组.术后尿路刺激症状PURP明显少于TUVP组.结论 PKRP与TUVP对治疗BPH均安全有效,但PKRP术中出血较少,术后并发症率低,但手术时间较长.     

经尿道气化结合电切术治疗前列腺增生

目的探讨经尿道前列腺气化电切术（TUVP）联合经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）治疗前列腺增生的疗效。方法回顾性分析TuvP联合TURP治疗前列腺增生症602例的临床资料。结果手术时间30．150min,平均70min。术中输血5例（0．8％）,术中前列腺包膜穿孔7例（1．1％）,出现电切综合征（TURS）10例（1．7％）,因术中出血中转开放手术3例（0．4％）。无永久性尿失禁病例。术后随访378例,随访时间3-120个月,IPSS由术前21．1下降至7．6;最大尿流量由术前10．3ml／s增加至19．3ml／s。结论联合应用TUVP和TURP治疗前列腺增生症具有效果好、安全性高及并发症少等优点,值得临床推广应用。