经尿道前列腺电气化术和电化学治疗高龄高危前列腺增生的比较  

Evaluation of transurethral vaporization and transurethral electo-chemical for the treatment of high-risk benign prostatic hyperplasia

作　　者：刘凡 欧宗泉 李彤 郭志云 吴俊勇 

机构地区：[1]江西省赣州市立医院泌尿外科,341000

出　　处：《中国现代医药杂志》2006年第6期67-69,共3页Modern Medicine Journal of China

摘　　要：目的比较经尿道前列腺电气化切除术(TUVP)和经尿道前列腺电化学治疗(TEP)对高龄高危前列腺增生症(BPH)患者的治疗效果。方法在68例高龄高危前列腺增生症患者中,45例行经尿道前列腺电气化术,23例行经尿道前列腺电化学治疗,对两组的手术结果进行疗效比较,并随访3￣6个月。结果两种术式患者手术后前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流率(MFR)、残余尿量(RUV)与术前比较均有显著改善(P<0.05),两组资料之间相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。手术时间两组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术中术后出血量、置管时间以及住院时间TEP组明显小于TUVP组(P<0.01);TEP组术中术后并发症少于TUVP组。结论两种术式治疗效果相近,但TEP组围手术期对患者影响更小,更安全,操作更简单,不失为一种理想的治疗高龄高危BPH的方法。Objective To evaluation the effectiveness of transurethral vaporization （TUVP） and transurethral electrochemical （TEP） for the treatment of high-risk benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods In 68 cases of patients with high-risk prostatic hyperplasia, 45 cases were treated by TUVP and 23 cases were undergone by TEP and had been followed up for an average of six months. Results Postoperatively, the IPSS, QOL, MFR and RUV of all the cases were significantly improve （P〈 0.05）, and there was no significant difference between them （P〉0.05）. The duration of procedure in the TUVP and TEP groups was no significant difference, but the blood loss, the catheration time and the hospital stay time were significantly shorter in TEP groups than in TUVP groups （P〈0.01）. Adverse side effect in the TEP group was less than that in the TUVP group. Conclusions Two groups have similar effects, but the TEP is more safe and handle than the TUVP perioperatively. TEP is a good method for the treatment of high-risk BPH.

关 键 词：前列腺增生症 经尿道电气化术 电化学 

分 类 号：R699.8[医药卫生—泌尿科学]