本文關(guān)鍵詞： 良性前列腺增生癥 980nm半導(dǎo)體激光 前列腺剜除術(shù) 前列腺切除術(shù) 等離子　出處：《青海大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：目的:本研究主要對(duì)比分析980nm半導(dǎo)體激光前列腺剜除術(shù)(Diode laser enucleation of the prostate,DiLEP)與經(jīng)尿道前列腺等離子雙極電切術(shù)(Transuretheral plasmakinetic resection of prostate,PKRP)治療良性前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)的安全性與有效性,為今后臨床使用980nm半導(dǎo)體激光提供參考。方法:收集青海省人民醫(yī)院泌尿外科2015年05月—2016年12月收住入院且手術(shù)的BPH患者病例資料,符合條件患者111例,其中55例行DiLEP,56例行PKRP,分別為DiLEP組和PKRP組。通過分析兩組患者手術(shù)時(shí)間、術(shù)中失血量、圍手術(shù)期并發(fā)癥、術(shù)后膀胱沖洗時(shí)間、尿管留置時(shí)間及住院時(shí)間來評(píng)價(jià)兩種術(shù)式的安全性;通過比較兩組患者術(shù)前和術(shù)后3個(gè)月國際前列腺癥狀評(píng)分(IPSS)、生活質(zhì)量指數(shù)評(píng)分(QOL)、最大尿流率(Qmax)、殘余尿量(PVR)的差異來評(píng)價(jià)兩種術(shù)式的有效性。結(jié)果:111例患者順利完成手術(shù)及術(shù)后隨訪。DiLEP組與PKRP組術(shù)前年齡、病程、前列腺體積、IPSS、QOL、Qmax、PVR及血紅蛋白等一般資料比較差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);DiLEP組的手術(shù)時(shí)間與PKRP相比較差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);DiLEP組術(shù)中的失血量明顯少于PKRP組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);術(shù)后DiLEP組膀胱沖洗時(shí)間、尿管留置時(shí)間、住院時(shí)間均明顯少于PKRP組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);DiLEP組術(shù)后并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率與PKRP組相比,差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);DiLEP組與PKRP組術(shù)后3個(gè)月時(shí)復(fù)查指標(biāo)顯示兩組患LUTS均較術(shù)前明顯改善,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);兩組患者復(fù)查指標(biāo)間進(jìn)行比較,差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。結(jié)論:DiLEP與PKRP均是治療BPH安全有效的手術(shù)方式,且在改善BPH患者的LUTS方面近期療效相似。但DiLEP相比于PKRP具有圍手術(shù)期出血少及術(shù)后恢復(fù)快。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the safety and efficacy of laser enucleation of the prostate enucleation with 980nm semiconductor laser in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostatectomies. Methods: the data of BPH patients admitted to hospital from May 2015 to December 2016 in the Department of Urology of Qinghai Provincial people's Hospital were collected. The safety of the two groups was evaluated by analyzing the operation time, blood loss, perioperative complications, postoperative bladder irrigation time, urinary catheter retention time and hospitalization time. The effectiveness of the two methods was evaluated by comparing the differences of IPSS, QOLO, Qmaxus, PVR between the two groups before and 3 months after operation. Results 111 cases of patients were successfully completed. Age before operation and follow-up after operation. DiLEP group and PKRP group. There was no significant difference in the general data such as PVR and hemoglobin between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the operative time between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups. The amount of blood loss during operation in the P0.05 Dilep group was significantly lower than that in the PKRP group. The postoperative bladder irrigation time, urinary catheter retention time and hospitalization time in DiLEP group were significantly lower than those in PKRP group, and the incidence of postoperative complications in P0.05 + DiLEP group was significantly lower than that in PKRP group. There was no significant difference between the two groups at 3 months after operation, the LUTS in the two groups were significantly improved compared with those before operation, and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05), and the reexamination indexes were compared between the two groups. There was no significant difference (P 0.05). Conclusion both PKRP and VDLEP are safe and effective methods for the treatment of BPH, and the short-term curative effect in improving LUTS in BPH patients is similar. However, DiLEP has less perioperative bleeding and faster recovery than PKRP.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：青海大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：R699.8

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 孟海峰;DiLEP與PKRP治療BPH臨床療效對(duì)比分析[D];青海大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號(hào)：1524717