经尿道前列腺等离子双极汽化术与经尿道前列腺单极汽化术治疗高危前列腺增生的临床对比研究

目的比较经尿道前列腺等离子双极汽化术(TUBVP)与经尿道前列腺单极汽化术(TUVP)治疗高危前列腺增生(BPH)的临床疗效及安全性。方法高危BPH36例,两种术式各治疗18例,所有病例术后随访3个月。结果全部病例均手术顺利,两组术中灌洗量、出血量、术后冲洗时间、导尿管留置时间和住院时间差异无显著性。手术时间TUBVP组TUVP组,差异显著。TUVP组有1例发生电切综合征(TURS),TUBVP组没发生TURS。术后3个月Qmax、PVR、IPSS、QOL较术前均有显著改善,组间差异无显著性。结论TUBVP安全性更好,对机体生理功能影响更小,并发症少,TUBVP更适合高危BPH。

Clinical comparison study of transurethal bipolar vaporization of prostate and transurethal vapor-resection of prostate for high-risk BPH

Objective To compare the clinic efficacy and safety of operation of transurethal bipolar vaporization of the prostate (TUBVP) with transurethal vapor-resection of the prostate (TUVP) for high-risk BPH. Methods A total of 36 patients with high-risk BPH were enrolled in this study; Of them 18 cases underwent TUBVP and 18,TUVP. They were followed up for 3 months after surgery. Results All of 36 cases came through the perioperation. Comparison between TUBVP group and TUVP group included the following: irrigating fluid and blood loss in operation, continuous bladder irrigation time, catheterization time and lenth of hospital stay after operation. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups. Operating time was shorter in TUBVP group than in the TUVP group and statistically significant, and resected prostate weight was larger in the TUBVP group than in the TUVP group and statistically significant too. One patient in TUVP group suffered from TURS; while no TURS occurred in TUBVP group. Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QOL improved significantly compare with preoperation after 3 months. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups. Conclusions TUBVP is superior to TUVP in safety, physical damage and less complication. TUBVP is more suitale to high-risk BPH.