经尿道汽化电切术与经尿道等离子电切术治疗前列腺增生临床观察  

Clinical observation on TURP and TUPRP for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia

作　　者：易炜[1] 汪自力[1] 陈刚[1] 胡海峰[1] 杨进[1] 岐宏政[1] 王云汉[1] 

机构地区：[1]成都大学附属医院泌尿外科,四川成都610081

出　　处：《现代医药卫生》2012年第15期2286-2287,共2页Journal of Modern Medicine & Health

摘　　要：目的比较经尿道汽化电切术(TURP)与经尿道等离子电切术(TUPRP)治疗前列腺增生(BPH)的临床疗效及安全性。方法以2009年6月至2011年5月该院收治的前列腺增生患者120例作为研究对象,随机分为对照组(经尿道汽化电切术组)60例及观察组(经尿道等离子电切术组)60例。对患者的疗效、手术时间以及并发症进行比较。结果术后随访1～3个月,两种手术方式在手术时间、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)变化、最大尿流率(MFR)变化、电切综合征(TURS)发生率、尿道狭窄发生率等方面比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 TURP与TUPRP均是治疗BPH的有效方法,但TUPRP的手术时间及术后并发症明显优于TURP。Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of transurethral resection of prostate （TURP） and transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate （TUPRP） for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia（BPH）. Methods 120 cases of BPH treated in our hospital from June 2009 to May 2011 were randomly divided into the TURP group and the TUPRP group, 60 cases in each group. The clinical efficacy, operation time and complications were reviewed and compared between the two groups. Results After postoperative 1-3 months follow up, the operation time, change of IPSS scores, MFR incidence rate of TURS and incidence rate of urethral stricture had statistical differences between the TURP group and the TUPRP group （P〈0.05）. Conclusion TURP and TUPRP all are effective methods to treat BPH,but TUPRP is obviously superior to TURP in the operation time and postoperative complications.

关 键 词：前列腺增生/治疗 电外科手术/方法 离子 经尿道前列腺切除术/方法 尿道/外科学 经尿道汽化电切 

分 类 号：R711.32[医药卫生—妇产科学]