The clinical analysis of two different technology in transurethral resection of the apex of prostate gland
-
摘要: 目的:探讨经尿道前列腺切除术中前列腺尖部腺体的切除方法,分析比较对前列腺尖部腺体采用逆行剜除法与顺行切除法两种方法的疗效差异。方法:2010年1月~2011年3月间对82例BPH患者采用经尿道等离子双极电切术(TUPKP),按对尖部腺体切除方法的不同,随机分为尖部腺体逆行剜除组(观察组)和顺行切除组(对照组)治疗。并随访6~12个月,平均7.8个月。结果:全组82例手术均获得成功,无中转开放手术及大出血等严重并发症。77例获得6个月以上的随访,其中观察组40例,对照组37例,5例失访。两组在年龄组成、病程、术前前列腺质量(W)、剩余尿量(RUV)、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流率(Qmax)方面的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组在手术时间、切除组织量及术后住院时间方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后6个月,两组在IPSS、QOL、RUV及Qmax方面比较,观察组优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:在经尿道前列腺切除术中,采用尖部腺体逆行剜除法较顺行切除法有更好的近期治疗效果。Abstract: Objective: To compare the distinct of retrograde and anterograde transurethral prostatectomy prostate glands in the apex of the prostate.Methods: From January 2010 to March 2011 rooms, 82 cases of patients with benign prostate hyperplasia with transurethral plasma bipolar electricity cut method(TUPKP), according to the apex of the gland excision of different method of randomly divided into apex of the gland retrograde gouging out except group(the observation group) and groups with line(control group) treatment, and were followed up for 6 to 12 months,average 7.8 months,the analysis of the clinical data compared between the two groups.Results: All the group 82 examples, were performed successfully, with no transit open surgery and massive hemorrhage serious complications. 77 cases with six months were followed-up, of which the observation group in 40 cases, 37 cases in control group. 5 cases were lost from follow-up. The difference form two groups in age composition, duration, preoperative prostate(W), the quality of residual urine output(RUV), international prostate symptoms score(IPSS), the quality of life(QOL) scores, the largest urine flow rate(Qmax) were compared with no statistically significant(P>0.05). The difference from two groups in operation time, removing tissues and postoperative hospitalization time were statistically significant(P>0.05). The two groups in June IPSS, QOL, RUV and Qmax compares were statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusions: In transurethral resection of the prostate, the apex of the glands in the gouge retrograde approach is better than anterograde apporoach.
-
-
[1] 赵国栋,陈勇,李建新,等. 经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术与电切术治疗前列腺增生症的比较[J]. 中国微创外科杂志,2007,7(10):962-964.
[2] WALSH P C, RETIK A B, VAUGHAN T R, et al. Campbells urology(7th)[M]. Philadelphia:WB Saunders, 2001:1511-1513.
[3] 高新,周祥福主编. 微创泌尿外科手术与图谱[M]. 广州:广东科技出版社,2007:173-174.
[4] 李传刚,潘伯年. 经尿道前列腺电切术并发症的防治[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志,2006,21(6):477-480.
[5] 杨银桂,冯波,萧枝松.保留前叶的经尿道前列腺切除术及解剖学依据[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志,2010,25(7):501-502.
[6] 陈向东,王忠,齐隽.经尿道前列腺剜除术中对前列腺包膜和外科包膜性状的观察[J]. 中国男科学杂志,2009,23(5):43-45.
[7] 庞自力. 经尿道前列腺电切术后排尿困难原因分析[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志,2007,22(6):401-404.
[8] 郑少波,刘春晓,徐亚文,等. 腔内剜除法在经尿道前列腺汽化电切术中的应用[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志,2005,26(8):558-516.
[9] 杨德林,柯昌兴,王剑松,等. 经尿道等离子前列腺电切术中不同切除方法的应用[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志,2009,24(10):776-778.
[10] 秦钢,邓若平,陈林川. 两种手术方法治疗良性前列腺增生的临床疗效分析[J]. 中国现代医生,2010,48(13):36-37.
-
计量
- 文章访问数: 39
- PDF下载数: 74
- 施引文献: 0