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。     

前列腺剜除术联合小切口膀胱切开术治疗大体积前列腺增生并膀胱结石的疗效观察

目的:探讨"半微创技术"即经尿道2μm激光前列腺剜除术联合小切口膀胱切开术,治疗大体积良性前列腺增生(BPH)合并大体积或多发膀胱结石的疗效。方法:对21例大体积BPH合并膀胱结石患者,采用经尿道2μm激光剜除前列腺,后经耻骨上正中切口显露膀胱,将所剜除腺体及结石取出。结果:21例手术均成功,手术时间明显缩短,患者均未输血。术后4~6d拔除尿管。术前与术后6个月Qmax分别为(6.1±2.6)ml/s和(20.5±4.3)ml/s;剩余尿分别为(125.7±61.5)ml与(19.0±5.8)ml;国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)分别为(21.6±5.2)分与(5.4±3.0)分;生活质量评分(QOL)分别为(4.3±0.5)分与(1.9±0.8)分。四项指标手术前后比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.01)。术后随访3~6个月,2例出现暂时性尿失禁,全部患者无尿瘘、切口感染等手术并发症。结论:经尿道2μm激光前列腺剜除术结合小切口膀胱切开术,一次性治疗大体积BPH合并多发膀胱结石能明显减少手术时间,具有安全、高效的优点,对于大体积BPH合并膀胱多发结石或质硬、直径3cm结石的高龄患者值得推荐应用。     

Photoselective KTP laser vaporization of the prostate: first experiences with 65 procedures

PURPOSE: To study the feasibility and efficacy of 80 W potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser vaporization (GreenLight PV; Laserscope) of the prostate in patients suffering from voiding dysfunction secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) or known locally advanced prostate cancer (CaP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients with symptomatic BPH (N=57) or obstructive voiding secondary to CaP (N=8) with a mean age of 70 +/- 10 years (range 46-93 years) underwent photoselective 80 W KTP laser vaporization of the prostate. All consecutive patients, including 34 with a history of chronic urinary retention or indwelling catheter, were enrolled. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume as measured by transrectal ultrasonography, urinary peak flow measurement (Qmax), postvoiding residual volume (PVR) measured transvesically, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) were assessed preoperatively, on the day of discharge, and 1 month and 3 months postoperatively. The mean preoperative prostate volume was 49 +/- 32 cc (range 15-250 cc). RESULTS: In all 65 patients, KTP laser vaporization was performed successfully, with a mean operating time of 57 +/- 25 minutes (range 10-160 minutes). No major complication occurred intraoperatively or postoperatively, and no transfusions were necessary. All patients were catheter free after 1 month. At 1 month and 3 months, the urinary peak flow had increased from 7.7 +/- 2.8 mL/sec preoperatively to 20.9 +/- 11.6 mL/sec (+171%) and 18.2 +/- 6.3 mL/sec (+136%), respectively. The IPSS decreased from 18.5 +/- 6.7 to 9.2 +/- 7.7 (-50%) and 7.2 +/- 5.9 (-61%) at 1 and 3 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A 80 W KTP laser vaporization of the prostate technique instantly removes obstructive tissue. A transurethral resection-like visible cavity is the endpoint. Immediate symptom relief is achieved in a truly minimally invasive way with a very low postoperative complication rate within 3 months' follow-up.     

TUEB剜除电极下经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术的安全性及有效性研究

目的:研究TUEB剜除电极下经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术(TUEP)的安全性及有效性。方法:收集2011年5月~2011年9月我院因中、重度下尿路症状诊断为前列腺增生(BPH)具备手术指征,行TUEB剜除电极下的TUEP术的56例患者的临床资料。监测术前经腹超声前列腺重量,血清前列腺特异抗原(PSA);术中出血量,前列腺切除率,术后血红蛋白,血钠浓度,血葡萄糖浓度;术前、术后1个月及3个月的国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS),生活质量评分(QOL),最大尿流率(Qmax),剩余尿量(RUV)(经腹超声)及术后并发症发生率等指标。结果:43例患者完成3个月随访,前列腺切除率(64.18±7.54)%,单位时间切除量(0.89±0.36)g,患者无电切综合征及包膜穿孔,血糖、血钠浓度手术前后差异无统计学意义。术后1个月IPSS评分、QOL评分、Qmax及RUV较术前显著好转。术后1个月及术后3个月上述指标差异无统计学意义。术后短暂性尿失禁发生率7.14%,恢复时间(4.50±1.29)d,无永久性尿失禁,术后1个月尿道狭窄发生率16.07%,尿道扩张后均缓解。结论:TUEB剜除电极下TUEP术是安全有效的手术方法。     

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。     

经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术与前列腺电切术近期疗效的对比分析

目的比较前列腺钬激光剜除术(holmium laser enucleation of the prostate,HoLEP)和前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of the prostate,TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyplasia,BPH)的疗效及安全性。方法将2012年6月至2013年7月90例行腔内手术治疗的BPH患者随机分为2组,分别行前列腺钬激光剜除术(HoLEP)和经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)。监测、记录2组患者围手术期和术后1、3、6个月复查指标,比较最大尿流率(maximum flow rate,Qmax)、国际前列腺症状评分(international prostate symptom score,IPSS)、生活质量评分(quality of life score,QOL)等变化并进行统计学分析,比较两种术式近期临床疗效。结果术前两组患者一般情况和国际前列腺症状评分、生活质量评分、最大尿流率、残余尿量测量以及前列腺重量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);HoLEP组较TURP组术中出血量、手术时间、低钠血症的发生率、膀胱冲洗时间、留管时间都较低(P0.01);术后1个月、3个月及6个月2组IPSS、QOL和Qmax均比术前有明显改善(P0.01);但2组间比较并无显著统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 HoLEP术与TURP术相比,近期手术效果相似,且手术安全性更好,可视为治疗BPH的较好新方法。     

良性前列腺增生患者经尿道前列腺切除术后排尿症状改变及分析

目的 研究良性前列腺增生患者经尿道前列腺切除术后排尿症状的变化及其与术前临床参数的关系。方法 对281例良性前列腺增生手术患者进行随访,对其手术前、后排尿症状评分和术前临床资料进行分析。患者年龄（70±6）岁。术前前列腺体积（75±39）ml,血清总前列腺特异性抗原（T—PSA）（5±5）ng／ml,最大尿流率（8±3）ml／s,切除前列腺重量（32±19）g。术前国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）（24±7）分,生活质量评分（QOL）（4．6±1．0）分,平均梗阻症状（3．6±1．2）分,平均刺激症状（3．5±1．0）分。结果 术后IPSS（7±7）分,生活质量评分（1．2±1．1）分,与术前相比,均明显改善。不同排尿症状改善的幅度不同,平均梗阻症状的改善幅度大于平均刺激症状的改善。术后夜尿和尿频分别为（2．2±1．1）分和（1．2±1．4）分。结论 经尿道前列腺切除患者术后排尿症状明显改善,症状的改善程度与术前IPSS和QOL相关,而与患者年龄、术前前列腺体积、T-PSA、最大尿流率、切除前列腺重量无相关性。梗阻症状的改善优于刺激症状的改善,而夜尿是改善幅度最小的症状。     

前列腺尖部推切法治疗良性前列腺增生症125例疗效观察

目的探讨经尿道前列腺切除术中前列腺尖部腺体的切除方法,分析比较对前列腺尖部腺体采用尖部推切法与顺行切除法两种方法的疗效差异。方法 2012年1月至2016年1月间,对125例良性前列腺增生(benign prostate hyperplasia,BPH)患者采用经尿道等离子前列腺电切术按对尖部腺体切除方法的不同随机分为尖部腺体逆行尖部推切组(观察组)和顺行切组(对照组)治疗并随访3~12个月,平均6.8个月。结果全组125例手术均获得成功,无中转开放手术及大出血等严重并发症。98例获得6个月以上的随访。其中观察组51例、对照组47例。两组在年龄组成、病程、术前前列腺质量(W)、剩余尿量(RUV)、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)最大尿流率(Qmax)方面的差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组在手术时间、切除组织量及术后住院时间方面差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后6个月,两组在IPSS、QOL、RUV及Qmax方面比较,观察组优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论在经尿道前列腺切除术中,采用前列腺尖部推切法法较顺行切除法有更好的近期治疗效果。     

术前不同疗程非那雄胺对中重度前列腺增生手术出血的疗效观察

目的:探讨在中重度(前列腺体积大于40 ml)前列腺增生(BPH)行经尿道前列腺电切(TURP)术前应用非那雄胺的最佳疗程.方法:对43例术前服用非那雄胺超过3个月(长程组)以及90例术前服用5～7天(短程组)的中重度BPH患者的临床资料,与同期78例未服用任何抗雄激素药物的中重度BPH手术患者的临床资料进行比较.结果:长程服药组TURP术中出血量、甘露醇的灌洗液量、电切操作时间、术者对术中视野的满意度、以及术后生理盐水连续冲洗膀胱的时间和所消耗的冲洗液量与对照组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05),而短程服药组除术后生理盐水连续冲洗膀胱的时间和所消耗的冲洗液量与对照组比较,差异有统计学意义外,其他指标的差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论:对中重度BPH患者行TURP术前应用非那雄胺3个月以上可显著减少术中、术后出血,而术前应用非那雄胺5～7天不能显著减少术中出血.     

经尿道悬浮离子刀电切术治疗高危前列腺增生症

目的探讨经尿道悬浮离子刀电切术(EURP)治疗高危前列腺增生症(BPH)的治疗效果。方法56例BPH患者,经个体化围手术期准备行经尿道悬浮离子刀电切术治疗,观察手术安全性及有效性。结果全部病人均顺利承受手术,随访3～6个月,最大尿流率由术前7．5ml／s上升至术后21ml／s,国际前列腺症状评分术前平均28分,术后3个月降至8分,剩余尿量从平均140ml降至35ml。结论经尿道悬浮离子刀电切术治疗高危前列腺增生症见效快,安全性好,并发症少。     

钬激光前列腺剜除术与电切术安全性及疗效比较

目的 比较并探讨钬激光前列腺剜除术(HoLEP)和传统经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)的安全性及疗效,旨在为良性前列腺增生症的临床治疗提供理论依据.方法 回顾性分析哈尔滨医科大学附属第四医院2015年1月-2016年1月收治的349例良性前列腺增生症患者的病例资料,并将其随机分成两组.其中172例患者选择行钬激光前列腺剜除术,另外177例患者选择行传统经尿道前列腺电切术.比较两组患者术中出血量、手术时间、术后导尿管留置时间、术后住院天数以及术后并发症(尿失禁、膀胱痉挛、出血)的发病率.随访3个月,重新评估IPSS、QOL、Qmax指标并比较疗效.结果 与传统经尿道前列腺电切术组相比,钬激光前列腺剜除术组患者的手术时间明显缩短、术中出血量及术后住院天数显著降低(P＜0.05),术后导尿管留置时间[钬激光前列腺剜除术组:(2.4±0.5)d;传统经尿道前列腺电切术组:(5.7±0.6)d,P＜0.05].明显减少,术中切除前列腺重量明显增加,术后并发症的发病率[钬激光前列腺剜除术组:5/172(2.9％);传统经尿道前列腺电切术组:19/177(10.7％),P＜0.01]显著下降.3个月后,两组术后PVR、IPSS、QOL以及Qmax较术前相比明显改善(P＜0.01),组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 钬激光前列腺剜除术与传统经尿道前列腺电切术相比疗效相当,但安全性更高.钬激光前列腺剜除术治疗临床前列腺增生症具有重要意义.     

经尿道等离子双极电刀前列腺剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生

目的:探讨经尿道等离子双极电刀前列腺剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的临床应用。方法:选择单纯BPH有手术指征患者90例,年龄59~83岁,平均71岁,随机分为2组,I组(50例)行经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP),Ⅱ组(40例)行经尿道等离子双极电刀前列腺剜除术(PKEP)。统计每例患者术前前列腺体积、国际前列腺症状(IPSS)评分、生活质量指数(QOL)评分和最大尿流率(Qm ax),手术时间,术中术后有无并发症、输血,术后有无膀胱持续冲洗及术后2周、术后6个月IPSS、QOL评分和Qm ax。结果:I组、II组术前前列腺体积平均为58.9、58.3 g;I组、II组手术时间平均为58.8、93.0 m in;I组患者中2例出现轻度电切综合征(TURS),II组患者术中术后心电监护未发现异常;术后行膀胱持续冲洗分别有3例、1例;术后导尿管拔除后出现急迫性尿失禁分别有4例;90例患者术中、术后均无输血。术前、术后2周、术后6个月IPSS评分I组平均分别为19.7分、11.6分、5.1分,II组平均分别为18.6分、8.4分、4.9分;QOL评分I组平均分别为4.6分、3.3分、1.1分,II组平均分别为4.5分、2.7分、1.1分;Qm ax I组平均分别为6.3、13.0、18.1 m l/s,II组平均分别为6.9、14.2、19.0 m l/s。两组间的手术时间、术后2周IPSS、QOL评分,各组内术前与术后6个月IPSS、QOL评分、Qm ax的差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。两组间术前前列腺体积、术前IPSS、QOL评分和Qm ax、术后6个月IPSS、QOL评分及术后2周、术后6个月Qm ax的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:PKEP可安全、有效、彻底治疗BPH,可作为手术治疗BPH的一种选择。     

Holmium: YAG Laser Resection of the Prostate Versus Visual Laser Ablation of the Prostate and Transurethral Ultrasound-Guided Laser Induced Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Background:
Transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P) is the gold standard for treating symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) despite some perioperative morbidity. As a minimally-invasive alternative to TUR-P, a neodymium:YAG laser, and more recently a holmium:YAG laser, have been used in transurethral surgery for BPH. In order to assess the safety and efficacy of various BPH treatments, the outcome in patients treated with transurethral ultrasound-guided laser induced prostatectomy (TULIP), visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) and holmium:YAG laser resection of the prostate (HoLRP) were retrospectively compared.
Methods:
From May 1995 to August 1996, 60 patients with symptomatic BPH underwent TULIP (n=20), VLAP (n=20), and HoLRP (n=20). All patients were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 and 3 months postoperatively by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the IPSS quality-of-life score (QOL), maximum flow rate (MFR), prostate volume, and residual urine volume.
Results:
The preoperative mean IPSS was 18.5, 19.3, and 19.6 and the mean MFR was 6.3, 6.9, and 6.1mL/sec in the TULIP, VLAP, and HoLRP groups, respectively. At 1 month after surgery, the mean IPSS was 10.2, 9.5, and 4.7 and the mean MFR was 9.6, 1 3.4, and 1 8.7mL/sec while at 3 months the mean IPSS was 6.2, 6.1, and 3.6 and the mean MFR was 14.1, 1 6.0, and 21.5 mL/sec in patients treated with TULIP, VLAP, and HoLRP, respectively. No serious complication occurred in any patient.
Conclusion: Although HoLRP requires expertise, it appears to be a promising treatment modality for BPH.     

A randomized controlled trial comparing transurethral resection of the prostate,contact laser prostatectomy and electrovaporization in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: analysis of subjective changes,morbidity and mortality

PURPOSE: We analyze subjective changes, morbidity and mortality in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) after transurethral resection of the prostate, contact laser prostatectomy and electrovaporization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted on men with lower urinary tract symptoms, who met the criteria of the International Scientific Committee on BPH, had a prostate volume between 20 and 65 ml., and had Sch?fer's obstruction grade 2 or greater. Objective morbidity was recorded for up to 12 months. Subjective morbidity was measured by a questionnaire completed by patients. Subjective changes were quantified using the International Prostate Symptom Score, Symptom Problem Index, Quality of Life question and BPH Impact Index. These indexes and the morbidity questionnaire were measured weekly for the first 6 weeks postoperatively and then at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Transurethral prostatic resection was analyzed in 50 men, laser treatment in 45 and electrovaporization in 46. Baseline characteristics, and changes in the symptom scores up to 12 months postoperatively were similar. Perioperative blood loss and perforation were greatest in the resection group, and retention was greatest in the laser group. During the first 6 postoperative weeks there was less pain and less hematuria after resection, and less incontinence after laser prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective changes are similar for transurethral prostatic resection, contact laser and electrovaporization. In the first 6 weeks after treatment there are only slight differences in pain, hematuria and incontinence among the therapies.     

经尿道气化加电切术治疗重度前列腺增生症

目的：探讨重度前列腺增生症（BPH）的有效治疗方法。方法：采用经尿道前列腺电气化术（TUEVP）加经尿道前列腺电切术（TURP）联合治疗重度BPH患者90例。结果：手术时间45－124min，平均95min，平均切除前列腺组织39g。1例发生电切综合征。术后24－96h拔除导尿管，排尿均通畅。全部病例随访3个月－2年，IPSS由术前平均30．8分下降至术后7．2分（P＜0．001），最大悄流率（Qmax）由术前平均5．1ml/s或升至术后平均16．7mol／s（P＜0．001），剩余尿由术前平均420ml降至术后平均10ml。术后继发性出血3例（3．3％），尿道狭窄（2．2％），暂时性尿失禁3例（2．25），永久性尿失禁2例（2．2％）。结论：TUEVP加TURP联合治疗BPH兼有两者优点，是治疗重度BPH的有效方法。     

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.     

A new parameter in decision making for transurethral electroresection of benign prostate hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the clinical usefulness of transition zone (TZ) volume (TZV) measured by transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) was investigated as a new parameter for the preoperative prediction of the treatment efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: Fifty-six men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH; age 68.6 +/- 9.7 years) underwent TURP and were evaluated based on ordinary BPH parameters such as the international prostatic symptom score (I-PSS), quality of life (QOL) score, peak urine flow and entire prostate volume (PV), as well as the new TZV parameters and calculation of the TZ index. Relative risks were adjusted simultaneously for potentially confounding variables by multiple logistic regression analysis after adjustment for age, QOL, I-PSS, Qmax and residual urine. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk for TURP at a TZ index of 0.1 increased to 4.5 (95% confidence interval 2.3-8.78). In general, poor responses were observed in patients with less symptomatic scores or lower values prior to operation, but there was a weak correlation between treatment outcome and preoperative scores or values of ordinary parameters. The volume parameters of BPH and PV did not predict treatment efficacy preoperatively, but TZV and the TZ index correlated with the treatment efficacy of TURP. CONCLUSION: TZV and the TZ index seem to be useful new parameters in preoperative decision-making with regard to TURP.     

经尿道等离子电切与经膀胱前列腺摘除术治疗大体积前列腺增生的比较

目的：比较经尿道前列腺等离子电切术（PKPR）和经膀胱前列腺摘除术（TVP）治疗大体积（100-150m1）良性前列腺增生（BPH）的安全性和有效性。方法：将100例体积介于100-150ml的BPH患者随机分配到,PKRP组和TVP组。术前分析相关临床资料,术后1个月、3个月、6个月和12个月对患者进行随访,评估指标包括国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOL）、最大尿流率（Qmax）和膀胱剩余尿量（PVR）,并记录不良事件。结果：总计有96例患者完成了12个月的随访,PKRP组手术时间较长,但术中失血量少;TVP组虽然有较高的输血率,但腺体切除率占明显优势。PKRP组术后留置导尿管时间、膀胱冲洗时间及住院时间明显缩短。术后1个月,两组的评估指标均得到显著改善,下尿路症状的改善状态在术后12个月内均维持着稳定状态,两组间IPSS、QOL、Qmax和PVR参数并无明显差异。虽然术后两组的并发症发生率较少,但PKRP组的尿道狭窄发生率高于TVP组。结论：对于体积介于100-150ml的BPH患者,PKRP是一种安全有效的治疗方式,能达到传统开放手术的效果。     

Contact laser prostatectomy compared to TURP in prostatic hyperplasia smaller than 40 ml. Six-month follow-up with complex urodynamic assessment

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of contact laser vaporization (CLV) of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients with symptomatic prostatic hyperplasia with prostate volumes less than 40 ml were randomized to CLV or TURP treatment. All patients had infravesical obstruction confirmed preoperatively by pressure-flow studies. RESULTS: CLV lasted longer (51 +/- 13 min versus 34 +/- 12 min; p < 0.001), caused less bleeding (57 +/- 49 ml versus 175 +/- 133 ml; p < 0.001) and required longer bladder drainage time (4.3 +/- 6.1 versus 1.7 +/- 0.8 days; p < 0.01) than TURP. At 6-month follow-up, both treatments had improved objective urinary parameters and effectively reduced subjective symptoms. There were no significant differences between the study groups in symptoms scores (DanPSS-1), peak urinary flow rates (Qmax) and post-void residuals (PVR). Six months after treatment the detrusor pressure at peak urinary flow rate (PdetQmax) was 38.3 +/- 9.7 cm H2O in CLV patients and 31.3 +/- 9.9 cm H2O in TURP patients (NS). CLV treatment caused less retrograde ejaculation than TURP (1/16 potent CLV men versus 13/16 potent TURP men; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Contact laser prostatectomy proved to be a safe procedure which improved subjective and objective urinary parameters during 6-month follow-up as effectively as TURP in the treatment of symptomatic infravesical obstruction caused by minimal or moderate benign prostate enlargement.     

经尿道等离子双极电切术治疗高危前列腺增生症

目的:探讨高危前列腺增生症(BPH)患者经尿道等离子双极电切术(PKRP)治疗效果。方法:采用PKRP治疗高危BPH患者72例,随访3~14个月。结果:前列腺重量25.1~125(59.2±31.9)g,手术时间30~190min,平均(64±44)min。最大尿流率由术前的(7.5±1.7)ml/s上升至术后3个月的(19.2±3.2)ml/s(P<0.01),国际前列腺症状评分术前为(22.6±1.5)分,术后3个月降至(7.2±1.3)分(P<0.01)。结论:经尿道等离子双极电切术治疗高危BPH见效快,安全性好,并发症少。