经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术和电切术治疗前列腺增生症的比较  

A Comparison of the Clinical Effects Between Transurethral Plasmakinetic Resection and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

作　　者：赵国栋[1] 陈勇[1] 李建新[1] 岳鹏飞[1] 刘建平[1] 宋志卿[1] 陈永胜[1] 张玉国[1] 

机构地区：[1]包头铁路医院外二科,包头014040

出　　处：《中国微创外科杂志》2007年第10期962-964,共3页Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery

摘　　要：目的比较经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术和电切术的疗效。方法2003年10月-2006年7月,在127例前列腺增生症患者中,计算机随机数字法分组。1例神经源性膀胱患者,3例剜除术失败的患者退出试验。62例行经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术,61例行经尿道等离子前列腺电切术。比较手术腺体切除量、手术时间、术中出血量。结果剜除组术中出血少[（78.5±46.2）ml vs（115.0±43.5）ml,t=4.511,P=0.000],切除腺体多[（60.5±29.3）g vs（45.9±30.5）g,t=2.709,P=0.008]。两组手术时间相近[（93.4±35.5）min vs（81.3±46.3）min,t=1.629,P=0.106]。术后3个月前列腺症状评分、生活质量指数、最大尿流率、残余尿量以及并发症发生率（2/61 vs 5/62）差异无显著性。结论治疗前列腺增生症,经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术和电切术比较,剜除术腺体切除更彻底、出血少。Objective To compare the clinical effects of transurethral plasmakinetic resection （TUPR） with transurethral resection of the prostate（TURP） for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods From October 2003 to July 2006, a total of 127 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia was divided the into the TURP Group （n = 62 ） and the TUPR Group （n = 61 ） according to random number table by computer. 1 case of neurogenic bladder and 3 cases of TURP failure were ruled out the study. Results As compared with the RTRP Group, the TUPR Group had less intraoperative blood loss[ （78.5 ±46.2）ml vs （115.0 ± 43.5）ml, t =4. 511, P = 0.000] and more weight ofresected prostate[（60.5 ±29.3）gvs （45.9 ±30.5）g, t=2.709, P=0.008]. The operation time in the two groups was similar[ （93.4 ±35.5）rain vs （81.3 ±46.3）min, t = 1. 629, P =0. 106]. There were no statistic differences in international prostate symptom score, quality of life, Qmax, residual urine and complication rate（2/61 vs 5/62）. Conclusions Compared with TURP, transurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate has the advantages of less blood loss and more entire resection of the prostate, so it might be more effective.

关 键 词：前列腺增生症 经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术 经尿道等离子前列腺电切术 

分 类 号：R699[医药卫生—泌尿科学]