经尿道汽化结合电切术治疗良性前列腺增生症

目的　探讨经尿道汽化结合电切术治疗良性前列腺增生症 (Benignprostatehyperplasia ,BPH)的临床疗效及并发症的防治。　方法　低位硬膜外麻醉下 ,联合使用环状电极、滚筒状电极以及铲状电极对 83例BPH行经尿道汽化结合电切术。　结果　平均手术时间 5 8min ,平均失血量 80ml,均未输血 ,无经尿道电切综合征 (Transurethalresectionsyndrome ,TURS)发生。全部病例随访 2月～ 2年 ,国际前列腺症状评分 (IPSS)由术前 (2 6 4± 5 7)分下降至术后 (8 4± 3 9)分 (t =2 0 31,P <0 0 0 1) ,生活质量(QOL)评分由术前 (4 9± 0 4 )分下降至术后 (1 6± 0 3)分 (t=3 92 ,P <0 0 0 1) ,最大尿流率 (Maximumflowrate ,MFR)由术前 (5 1± 3 7)ml s上升至术后 (16 3± 4 2 )ml s(t=5 6 4 ,P <0 0 0 1)。　结论　经尿道前列腺汽化术 (Transurethalvaporizationofprostate ,TVP)结合经尿道前列腺电切术 (Transurethalresectionofprostate ,TURP)治疗BPH安全性高、并发症少、效果确切。     

选择性绿激光汽化联合电切治疗良性前列腺增生

目的 探讨良性前列腺增生(BPH)治疗的方法和安全性.方法 采用经尿道选择性绿激光前列腺汽化术(PVP)联合经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生43例.结果 43例患者均一次性处理成功,无出血、穿孔、电切综合征及尿路感染等并发症,疗效佳.手术后复查发现,患者排尿困难等下尿路症状明显减轻,最大尿流率(Qmax)同术前相比明显改善.结论 PVP联合TURP是治疗良性前列腺增生安全有效的方法.     

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…     

Photoselective vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a meta-analysis

Abstract Purpose: To determine whether photoselective vaporization has advantages over transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in terms of effectiveness and safety for treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials. The risk ratio, mean difference, and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Risk of bias of enrolled trials was assessed according to Cochrane Handbook. Results: A total of five trials were enrolled. There was no significant difference in the International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum flow rate between photoselective vaporization and TURP at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Photoselective vaporization was associated with significantly lower risk of capsule perforation, transurethral resection syndrome, and clot retention, significantly lower transfusion requirements, a shorter catheterization time, and a shorter length of hospital stay. TURP was associated with a shorter operative time and a lower risk of reoperation. In addition, there was no difference in risk of acute urinary retention and urethral/bladder neck sclerosis between photoselective vaporization and TURP. Conclusions: Photoselective vaporization and TURP provide comparable improvements in functional results, including International Prostate Symptom Score and maximum flow rate at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Photoselective vaporization offers advantages over TURP in terms of intraoperative safety; however, TURP is found to have a shorter operative time and lower reoperative risk.     

Comparison of photoselective vaporization and standard transurethral resection of the prostate on urodynamics in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Objectives:   To compare photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Methods:   Patients were enrolled in a prospective non-randomized trial and underwent PVP ( n  = 78) and TURP ( n  = 51). Primary outcome variables included: International Prostate Symptom Score, quality-of-life score, urinary peak flow and post-void residual urine volume at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were urodynamic variables, including the index of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and detrusor contractility.
Results:   Improvement in all outcome variables after PVP was comparable to that after TURP within 12 months. Outcome based on urodynamic parameters was also similar. Pre/post median value of the BOO index was 63/2 in the PVP group and 61/5 in the TURP group. Pre/post rate of detrusor overactivity was 49%/27% in the PVP and 53%/29% in the TURP group. There was minimal change in detrusor contractility. Overall, morbidity was comparable in the two groups.
Conclusions:   The 12-month outcome after PVP is similar to that of TURP with an effective relief from BOO and detrusor overactivity and minimal change in detrusor contractility.     

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。     

双极等离子体前列腺汽化术对患者性功能的影响

目的:评价经尿道双极等离子体前列腺汽化术(TUBVP)对良性前列腺增生症(BPH)患者性功能的影响.方法:将符合条件的61例患者随机分成TUVP术组(28例)及TUBVP术组(33例)进行比较.用勃起功能国际问卷-5(IIEF-5)评估患者的阴茎勃起功能,分别统计两组术后6、12个月阴茎勃起功能障碍(ED)与逆行射精(RE)的发生率.结果:获完整随访的患者TUVP组27例,TUBVP组30例.术后6个月ED发生率分别为:TUVP组18.5%(5/27例),TUBVP组6.7%(2/30例),术后12个月分别为11.1%(3例)和3.3%(1例);术后6个月和12个月RE发生率TUVP组为55.6%(15例),TUBVP组为53.3%(16例).结论:TUVP与TUBVP手术对ED均有一定的影响,但TUBVP明显小于TUVP,两组RE发生率差异无统计学意义.     

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.     

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。     

A comparison of fluid absorption during transurethral resection and transurethral vaporization for benign prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVES: To compare the absorption of irrigant fluid during transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomly assigned to undergo TURP or TUVP; 1.5% glycine +1% ethanol solution was used as the irrigating solution. The volume of irrigant absorbed during surgery was estimated from the ethanol concentration in the patient's expired breath, sampled every 10 min. RESULTS: In both groups, the estimated absorbed fluid volume increased with the duration of surgery (P < 0.05). At the end of surgery, the mean (median, range) fluid absorption during TUVP was 672 (606, 0-1400) mL and during TURP was 1347 (975, 453-2965) mL; the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although TURP has a greater associated risk of fluid absorption than TUVP there may still be severe fluid absorption with the latter. Even though TUVP is potentially less harmful than TURP in poor-risk patients, ethanol monitoring is beneficial for increasing patient safety.     

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。     

A randomized prospective study of laser ablation of the prostate versus transurethral resection of the prostate in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Objectives. To compare the safety and efficacy of laser ablation of the prostate, one of the minimally invasive treatments available for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia, to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).Methods. A prospective randomized study of 100 men with benign prostatic hyperplasia, with 50 patients in each treatment arm, was conducted. All patients met the entry criteria: age older than 45 years, no history of carcinoma of the prostate, a peak flow rate less than 15 mL/s, medical therapy failure, and the ability to undergo regional or general anesthesia. All patients underwent a preoperative evaluation consisting of the American Urological Association (AUA) symptom score, uroflowmetry, pressure-flow study, transrectal ultrasound for prostate volume, and serum prostate-specific antigen determination. Patients underwent either TURP or laser ablation of the prostate using the potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP)/neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Patients were seen for follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.Results. The mean age was 68.2 years (range 45 to 90) for the laser group and 67.4 years (range 54 to 82) for the TURP group. The mean AUA symptom score was 22 for the laser group and 21 for the TURP group. The mean peak uroflow rate was 7.6 ± 3.4 mL/s for the laser group and 6.5 ± 4.0 mL/s for the TURP group. At 12 months of follow-up, the mean AUA symptom score had decreased to 7 (−69.5%) for the laser group and to 3 (−80.9%) for the TURP group. The mean peak uroflow rate increased to 15.4 mL/s (+107.8%) for the laser group and to 16.7 mL/s (+150.7%) for the TURP cohort. Seventy-five percent of the laser group had a 50% or greater decrease in their individual AUA symptom score compared with 93% of the TURP group. Sixty-five percent of the laser cohort had a 50% or greater increase in their peak uroflow rate compared with 75% of the TURP cohort.Conclusions. Laser prostatectomy produced improvements in the peak flow rate and symptom score similar to those produced by TURP. The patients who underwent laser treatment required a longer period to reach maximum improvement, which probably reflects the lack of tissue debulking at the time of surgery. Further improvement in laser technology will be required to produce more immediate results.     

经尿道前列腺切除术对BPH患者夜尿症及睡眠质量的改善作用

目的:探讨经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)对伴有夜尿症的良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者夜尿症及睡眠质量的改善作用。方法:回顾性分析2016年12月至2018年12月北京大学人民医院收治的122例BPH患者的病例资料。年龄(69.7±7.9)岁。伴糖尿病20例,高血压病40例。前列腺体积(64.4±41.2)ml,体质指数(24.3±2.7)kg/m 2。术前国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)(20.5±5.5)分,夜尿次数(IPSS问题7)(4.4±1.9)次,无干扰睡眠时间(hours of undisturbed sleep,HUS)(1.7±1.0)h(其中HUS<3 h者110例),夜尿症生活质量评分(N-QOL)(24.9±6.3)分,生活质量评分(QOL)(4.4±0.9)分。111例完善尿动力学检查,最大尿流率(6.4±3.1)ml/s,最大膀胱容量(318.5±83.6)ml,残余尿量(153.9±158.9)ml,最大逼尿肌压力(78.4±35.5)cmH 2O(1 cmH 2O=0.098 kPa),其中逼尿肌肌力下降27例,膀胱过度活动症18例,膀胱有效容量下降9例,膀胱出口梗阻60例。42例术前有效膀胱容量<200 ml,其中最大膀胱容量>200 ml组33例,夜尿次数(4.5±1.9)次;最大膀胱容量≤200 ml组9例,夜尿次数(4.7±1.7)次。122例均行TURP治疗。记录术后IPSS、夜尿次数(IPSS评分问题7)、HUS、NQOL、QOL变化情况。比较最大膀胱容量≤200 ml组和>200 ml组术后夜尿症状改善情况。结果:122例术后随访3~20个月。术后IPSS(4.9±4.2)分,夜尿次数(1.9±1.2)次,HUS(3.4±1.3)h(其中91例HUS≥3 h,缓解率达82.7%),N-QOL(37.3±6.7)分,QOL(0.8±0.9)分,与术前比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。96例夜尿次数较术前改善≥50%。术后夜尿≥2次68例,<2次54例,两组术前IPSS总分[(21.8±5.3)分与(19.2±5.5)分]差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。最大膀胱容量≤200ml组术后夜尿次数(3.4±1.5)次,与术前比较差异无统计学差异(P=0.12),最大膀胱容量>200 ml组术后夜尿次数(1.9±1.1)次,与术前比较差异有统计学差异(P<0.05)。结论:TURP可以显著延长伴有夜尿症的BPH患者的HUS,提高患者生活质量及睡眠质量。TURP可减少部分BPH患者夜尿次数,术前IPSS总分高以及最大膀胱容量≤200 ml是伴有夜尿症BPH患者术后夜尿症状无改善的危险因素。     

经尿道选择性绿激光汽化术与前列腺汽化电切除术治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效比较

目的 比较经尿道选择性绿激光前列腺汽化术（PVP）与前列腺汽化电切除术（TUVP）治疗良性前列腺增生（BPH）的安全性及疗效。方法 随机采用PVP与TUVP两种手术方式治疗BPH患者163例,其中PVP组105例,TUVP组58例。对两组患者的国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOL）、术中出血量、手术时间、冲洗液清亮时间、留置尿管时间、最大尿流率、术后并发症等进行比较。结果 两组手术前后IPSS、QOL、Qmax、剩余尿量（RUV）比较均显著改善（P〈0．05）,但两组之间症状改善差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。TUVP组手术时间平均（37±15）min,PVP组则为平均（45±28）min,TUVP手术操作时间少于PVP,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。PVP组术中出血量少、拔除尿管早,优于TUVP组（P〈0,05）。术后随访6个月两组前列腺症状评分及最大尿流率疗效相同。TUVP组术后血尿明显（41．4％）,需膀胱冲洗,而PVP术后尿路刺激症状明显（55．2％,P〈0．05）。结论 PVP手术是一种手术过程非常安全、并发症少,能达到与TUVP完全相同治疗效果的手术方式。     

经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术和传统电切术治疗BPH的疗效比较

目的:比较经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术和等离子刀经尿道传统电切术治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的临床疗效,并对分离电切术进行研究。方法:2005年9月至2010年8月,收集81例BPH患者,随机分为2组。单盲法,行经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术40例,行等离子刀经尿道传统电切术41例;比较2组年龄、术前超声测量前列腺体积、手术中切除腺体重量、手术时间、术中出血、术后带尿管时间、术前及术后IPSS评分(国际前列腺症状评分)。结果:两组病例仅术后IPSS评分比较有统计学意义(P<0.05),分离电切组与传统电切组IPSS评分分别为(8.70±1.13)分和(9.95±1.54)分。结论:经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术和等离子刀经尿道传统电切术比较,经尿道等离子前列腺分离电切术临床疗效更为显著。     

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。     

经尿道选择性绿激光汽化术与经尿道前列腺电切术治疗良性前列腺增生的Meta分析

目的:对比经尿道选择性绿激光前列腺汽化术(photoselective vaporization of prostate,PVP)与经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of prostate,TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生症(benign prostate hyperplasia,BPH)的安全性及有效性。方法:按Cochrane系统评价方法,计算机检索Cochrane library、Medline、Embase、CNKI、CBM、万方、维普等文献资料库;手工检索中文泌尿外科期刊的相关文献。收集对比PVP及TURP治疗BPH的随机对照试验,质量评价后采用RevMan 5.0软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入5个符合要求的RCT研究,共528例患者。Meta分析结果显示:(1)有效性方面:PVP及TURP治疗BPH,术后6个月国际前列腺症状评分、生活质量、最大尿流率和残余尿量指标差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(2)安全性方面:与TURP相比,PVP手术时间较长[MD=28.97,95%CI(9.72,48.21)],术后留置导尿时间短[MD=-2.86,95%CI(-4.58,-1.13)],住院时间较短[MD=-2.32,95%CI(-2.79,-1.85)],术中输血较少[OR=0.08,95%CI(0.02,0.34)],术后尿道狭窄率无显著差异[OR=0.74,95%CI(0.27,2.07)]。结论:PVP与TURP均能显著改善轻、中度前列腺增生患者的症状,具有相似的临床疗效。与TURP相比,PVP操作更安全,术后留置导尿时间及住院时间更短;术后尿道狭窄发生率方面两种术式无显著差异。     

经尿道绿激光汽化术联合汽化电切术治疗重度前列腺增生的临床研究

目的:评估经尿道前列腺选择性绿激光汽化术联合汽化电切术(PVP+TUVP)与经尿道前列腺汽化电切术(TUVP)治疗体积大于80ml重度BPH的安全性和临床疗效。方法:选取符合入选标准的重度BPH患者95例,按手术方式随机分为PVP+TUVP治疗组48例和TUVP对照组47例,比较两种术式的手术时间、术中出血量、术后血尿时间、症状评分、尿流动力学及并发症等指标。结果:PVP+TUVP组手术时间略长于TUVP组,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.10)。PVP+TUVP组术中出血量、术后血尿时间、并发症均少于TUVP组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后随访12个月,PVP+TUVP组IPSS评分、QOL评分、Qmax、RUV均比术前明显改善(P<0.002),但组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:对于体积大于80ml重度BPH患者,PVP+TUVP比TUVP具有术中风险低、术后恢复快和并发症少等优点,临床疗效相似,是一种更加安全有效的微创手术方式。