论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较经尿道直出绿激光前列腺推铲式汽切术(PVRP-ST)与经尿道前列腺双极等离子电切术(TUPKRP)治疗高龄高危BPH的效果和安全性。方法:将64例高龄高危BPH患者随机分为两组,PVRP-ST组32例,TUPKRP组32例。比较分析两组患者术中及术后的相关临床指标。结果:所有患者手术均成功,无严重并发症发生。PVRP-ST组平均手术时间(71.9±23.3)min与TUPKRP组平均手术时间(60.0±24.1)min比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。PVRP-ST组平均出血量(24.3±2.1)ml小于TUPKRP组平均出血量(45.1±9.4)ml;两组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。PVRP-ST组和TUPKRP组术后3个月Q_(max)、RUV、IPSS、QOL均明显改善,与术前比较差异均有显著统计学意义(P<0.01)。两组组间比较,上述指标间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:PVRP-ST治疗高龄高危BPH安全、有效,在出血控制上较TUPKRP更有优势。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of transurethral straight green laser prostate shovel stenting (PVRP-ST) and transurethral prostate bipolar plasmaassay (TUPKRP) in the treatment of high-risk high-risk BPH. Methods: Sixty-four elderly patients with high-risk BPH were randomly divided into two groups: 32 cases in PVRP-ST group and 32 cases in TUPKRP group. Comparative analysis of two groups of patients with intraoperative and postoperative related clinical indicators. Results: All patients were successfully operated and no serious complications occurred. The average operation time in PVRP-ST group (71.9 ± 23.3) min was not significantly different from that in TUPKRP group (60.0 ± 24.1) min (P> 0.05). The average amount of bleeding in PVRP-ST group (24.3 ± 2.1) ml was less than that in TUPKRP group (45.1 ± 9.4) ml. There was significant difference between the two groups (P <0.05). Qmax, RUV, IPSS and QOL of PVRP-ST group and TUPKRP group were significantly improved at 3 months after operation, which were significantly different from those before operation (P <0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). Conclusion: PVRP-ST is safe and effective in the treatment of high-risk and high-risk BPH, and has advantages over TUPKRP in bleeding control.