2种不同微创手术方法治疗良性前列腺增生症的临床观察  

Comparison of two mini-incision treatments for benign prostate hyperplasia

作　　者：谢毅 陈焱 程学军 徐晨光 

机构地区：[1]解放军第四五八医院泌尿外科,广东广州510602

出　　处：《海南医学院学报》2012年第7期916-918,922,共4页Journal of Hainan Medical University

基　　金：中国高校医学期刊临床专项资金项目(112210218)~~

摘　　要：目的:观察经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切(TUPKP)与经尿道前列腺单极电切术(TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生症患者的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析我院自2009年10月～2011年10月住院的130例良性前列腺增生症患者,随机分为实验组和对照组,每组各65例。实验组采用TUPKP,对照组采用TURP。结果:实验组和对照组术中、术后手术时间、术中出血量、术后平均住院天数、膀胱冲洗时间以及留置尿管时间,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);实验组和对照组术后半年IPSS评分、QOL评分、残余尿和并发症等指标,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:TUPKP与TURP治疗良性前列腺增生症患者的临床效果相当,经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术相对更安全,值得临床推广应用。Objective. To compare the effect of urethra prostate plasma bipolar cutting （TUPKP） and unipolar electricity cut method （TURP） on benign prostate hyperplasia. Methods：Clinical data of 130 patients with benign prostate hyperplasia admitted from October 2009-October 2011 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into the experimental group and control group randomly. Patients in experi- mental group were treated with TUPKP, while patients in the control group by TURP. Results. There were significant differences in operative time, bleeding volume during surgery, average length of stay, bladder washout time and urinary catheter detaining time between two groups （P^0.05）~ there was no significant difference in IPSS score, QOL score half year after surgery, residual urine or incidence of com- plication （P^0.05）. Conclusions：The effect of TUPKP is comparable with TURP, and TUPKP is rela- tively safer. It is worthy of clinical application,

关 键 词：良性前列腺增生症 经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术 经尿道前列腺单极电切术 

分 类 号：R697.32[医药卫生—泌尿科学]