前列腺增生经尿道汽化切割与电切术的疗效比较  

Comparative Study of Transurethral Electrovaporization of Prostate Versus Transurethral Resection of Prostate on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

作　　者：王振林[1] 王笑芳[1] 李彬[2] 纪静涛 侯四川[1] 邵世修[1] 刘勇[1] 孙立江[1] 董胜国[1] 闫靖中[1] 

机构地区：[1]青岛大学医学院附属医院泌尿外科,山东青岛266003 [2]胶南市人民医院外二科,山东胶南266400 [3]青岛市铁路医院泌尿外科,山东青岛266000

出　　处：《中华男科学杂志》2002年第6期428-430,共3页National Journal of Andrology

摘　　要：目的 :比较经尿道前列腺汽化切割 (TUVP)与电切术 (TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生 (BPH)病人的疗效。　方法 :2 0 6例BPH病人 (术前估计前列腺重量≤ 6 0 g)被随机分成TUVP(97例 )和TURP(10 9例 ) 2组 ,对病人进行为期 12～ 34(平均 2 0 )个月的随访。　结果 :2组术后第 12、2 4个月国际前列腺症状评分 (I PSS)均较术前下降 (P<0 .0 1) ,膀胱残余尿 (PVR)均较术前减少 (P <0 .0 1) ,最大尿流率 (Qmax)均较术前升高 (P <0 .0 1)。　结论 :TUVP和TURP对增生≤ 6 0g的BPH病人均有良好的治疗作用。s: Objectives: To compare the efficacy of transurethral electrovaporization of prostate (TUVP) with transurethral resection of prostate (TURP). Methods : 206 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) whose prostatic sizes were all less than 60 grams were randomly divided into two groups. 97 cases were treated by TUVP while the other 109 cases were treated by TURP. The patients who underwent either TUVP or TURP were followed up for 12～34 months with an average of 20 months postoperatively. Results: Both groups showed the significant decline in the mean IPSS (international prostatic symptom score) ( P < 0.01 ), the mean PVR (Postovoiding Residual Volume) ( P < 0.01 ), while increase in mean Qmax(Peak uroflow rate) ( P < 0.01 ) in 12 months, 24 months after the operation. There were significant differences in the mean duration of operation or catheterization postoperatively ( P < 0.05 ). The main complications of post operation in the two groups were stress incontinence, TUR syndrome, urethral stricture, secondary bleeding. Conclusions: Both TUVP and TURP are effective treatment for the patient with BPH whose prostatic size is less than 60 grams. TUVP spends shorter time of the operation and postoperative catheterization than that of TURP.

关 键 词：良性前列腺增生 经尿道电切 经尿道汽化切割 疗效 并发症 

分 类 号：R699[医药卫生—泌尿科学]