本文選題：鈥激光　切入點：經(jīng)尿道等離子前列腺剜除術(shù)　出處：《中國微創(chuàng)外科雜志》2017年09期

【摘要】：目的比較經(jīng)尿道鈥激光前列腺剜除術(shù)(holmium laser enucleation of the prostate,Ho LEP)和經(jīng)尿道等離子前列腺剜除術(shù)(transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of prostate,TUPKEP)治療良性前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)的效果。方法回顧性分析2014年6月~2016年11月98例BPH資料,按患者意愿選擇術(shù)式。50例行Ho LEP,48例行TUPKEP,比較2組手術(shù)指標(biāo)及術(shù)后3個月生活質(zhì)量(quality of life,QOL)評分,最大尿流率(Qmax),國際前列腺癥狀評分(international prostate symptom score,IPSS),殘余尿量(residual urine volume,RUV)。結(jié)果與TUPKEP組比較,Ho LEP組手術(shù)時間長[(76.5±12.8)min vs.(57.9±18.3)min,t=5.850,P=0.000],但術(shù)中出血少[(128.5±32.7)ml vs.(188.7±39.5)ml,t=-8.232,P=0.000],膀胱沖洗時間、尿管留置時間、住院時間短[(2.6±0.9)d vs.(3.5±0.3)d,t=-6.585,P=0.000;(2.8±1.2)d vs.(4.6±1.4)d,t=-6.843,P=0.000;(5.7±1.1)d vs.(8.2±1.6)d,t=-9.045,P=0.000],2組總體術(shù)后并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率無顯著性差異(P0.05)。術(shù)后3個月,2組IPSS、QOL評分、Qmax、RUV均較術(shù)前明顯改善(P=0.000),但2組之間差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P0.05)。結(jié)論兩種術(shù)式治療BPH均安全、有效、微創(chuàng)。相比較而言,Ho LEP在安全性、術(shù)后恢復(fù)時間等方面更有優(yōu)勢。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the efficacy of transurethral laser enucleation of the prostate enucleation with transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of Tupk EP5 in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia BPH (BPH) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in June 2016.Methods to compare the efficacy of transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of prostate enucleation with transurethral plasma enucleation of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Data of 98 cases of BPH in November, According to the wishes of the patients, 48 patients with Ho LEPU were selected according to the patients' wishes. The surgical indexes and the quality of life (QOL) scores were compared between the two groups. Results compared with the TUPKEP group, the operation time of Ho LEP group was longer than that of TUPKEP group [76.5 鹵12.8)min vs.(57.9 鹵18.3 min, 5.850 min, P 0.000], but the intraoperative bleeding was less [128.5 鹵32.7)ml vs.(188.7 鹵39.5 鹵39.5 鹵8.232P 0.000], bladder washing time, urinary catheter retention time, and so on. There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups [2.6 鹵0.9d vs.(3.5 鹵0.585d vs.(3.5 鹵6.585U vs.(4.6 鹵1.4dt-6.843P0.000d vs.(4.6 鹵1.4dt-6.843P0.0000.000]. Conclusion the two groups are safe and effective in the treatment of BPH. Conclusion the two groups are both safe and effective in the treatment of BPH, and the QmaxRUV scores of the two groups are significantly improved compared with those of the patients before and after operation (P 0. 050.000, P < 0. 05), but there is no significant difference between the two groups in the treatment of the two groups of postoperative complications (P 0. 05 and P 0. 05, P 0. 05, P 0. 05, P 0. 05, P 0. 05, P 0. 05, P 0. 05, P < 0. 05). Conclusion the two groups are safe and effective in the treatment of BPH, but there is no significant difference between the two groups in the total incidence of postoperative complications (P 0. 05). By comparison, Ho LEP has more advantages in safety, postoperative recovery time and so on.
【作者單位】： 河南省人民醫(yī)院泌尿外科鄭州大學(xué)人民醫(yī)院;
【基金】：河南省自然科學(xué)基金(編號:162300410309) 河南省男科學(xué)基礎(chǔ)與臨床研究院士工作站基金(2016年)
【分類號】：R699.8

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 宋昕;;鈥激光在泌尿外科中的應(yīng)用(綜述)[J];中國城鄉(xiāng)企業(yè)衛(wèi)生;2009年01期

2 邵強;張峰波;尚東浩;田野;;鈥激光和銩激光在經(jīng)尿道前列腺剜除術(shù)中應(yīng)用的對比性研究[J];中華男科學(xué)雜志;2009年04期

3 ;廣德縣人民醫(yī)院成功開展“鈥激光”手術(shù)[J];安徽衛(wèi)生職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年06期

4 余和恒;;鈥激光在泌尿外科領(lǐng)域的臨床應(yīng)用[J];基層醫(yī)學(xué)論壇;2014年01期

5 廖利民;鈥激光在泌尿外科領(lǐng)域的臨床應(yīng)用[J];中國康復(fù)理論與實踐;2004年01期

6 孫穎浩,楊波;鈥激光在泌尿外科中的應(yīng)用[J];中華泌尿外科雜志;2005年01期

7 石維佳;保庭毅;楊增悅;邱建新;薛力;孫文美;;鈥激光對兔腎VX2腫瘤的毀損效應(yīng)[J];第四軍醫(yī)大學(xué)學(xué)報;2007年09期

8 竇孝康;;鈥激光在泌尿外科中的應(yīng)用[J];現(xiàn)代診斷與治療;2009年03期

9 孫文淇;王繼征;;鈥激光和電切除術(shù)在經(jīng)尿道前列腺剜除術(shù)中應(yīng)用的比較[J];醫(yī)學(xué)信息(上旬刊);2010年09期

10 鄭鐸;王大明;趙明;王一平;王亞利;;國產(chǎn)鈥激光在泌尿科應(yīng)用的初步體會[J];醫(yī)學(xué)信息(中旬刊);2010年11期

相關(guān)會議論文 前10條

1 凡杰;夏術(shù)階;趙福軍;沈志杰;李維國;朱軼勇;阮淵;韓邦e，

本文編號：1678801