【摘要】：目的：[A2]系統(tǒng)評(píng)價(jià)經(jīng)尿道雙極等離子前列腺電切術(shù)（transuretheral plasmakineticresection of prostate, PKRP）與經(jīng)尿道前列腺電切術(shù)(transurethral resection ofprostate，TURP）兩種手術(shù)方式治療良性前列腺增生的臨床綜合評(píng)價(jià)。包括在手術(shù)時(shí)間、手術(shù)出血量、導(dǎo)尿管留置時(shí)間、術(shù)后膀胱沖洗時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間等治療效果方面及IPSS、Qmax、QOL評(píng)分、RUV有效性指標(biāo)方面的差異情況。 方法：采用電子檢索和手工檢索對(duì)文獻(xiàn)進(jìn)行初檢,電子檢索數(shù)據(jù)庫包含有相關(guān)期刊論文、CENTRAL、Medline database、Cochrane圖書館和中國循證醫(yī)學(xué)/Cochrane中心數(shù)據(jù)庫(CEBM\CCD)等數(shù)據(jù)庫,檢索所有有關(guān)PKRP和TURP治療良性前列腺增生癥的隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)（RCT），檢索時(shí)間均為建庫至2014年1月31日。手工檢索《中華泌尿外科學(xué)雜志》等3種雜志，納入采用涉及經(jīng)尿道雙極等離子切除術(shù)（transuretheral plasmakinetic resection of prostate, PKRP）與經(jīng)尿道前列腺電切術(shù)(transurethral resection of prostate，TURP）隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)(RCT),數(shù)據(jù)由兩名研究員各自獨(dú)立提取,納入研究的方法學(xué)質(zhì)量采用Jadad質(zhì)量評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn),運(yùn)用Cochrane協(xié)作網(wǎng)提供的專用Meta分析軟件RevMan5.2對(duì)統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行分析。 結(jié)果初檢中文文獻(xiàn)564篇,外文文獻(xiàn)64篇,最終納入15篇RCT(其中4篇英文,11篇中文)涉及對(duì)照統(tǒng)計(jì)。Meta分析結(jié)果顯示,PKRP組在手術(shù)時(shí)間（min）、術(shù)中失血量（mL）、術(shù)后持續(xù)膀胱沖洗時(shí)間（d）和留置導(dǎo)尿時(shí)間（d）、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間（d）、國際前列腺癥狀評(píng)分（IPSS）、最大尿流率（Qmax）等方面好于TURP組，療效差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義；在術(shù)后半年殘余尿量（RUV）和生活質(zhì)量指數(shù)（QOL）等方面沒有明顯差異沒有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。 結(jié)論[A3] PKRP與TURP治療良性前列腺增生相比，在手術(shù)時(shí)間、手術(shù)出血量、導(dǎo)尿管留置時(shí)間、術(shù)后膀胱沖洗時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間、IPSS評(píng)分、Qmax等治療效果方面較好,在術(shù)后半年IPSS評(píng)分，，QOL評(píng)分、Qmax、RUV等有效性方面沒有顯著性差別。
[Abstract]:Objective: [A2] to evaluate the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) by transurethral bipolar plasma prostatectomy (transuretheral plasmakineticresection of prostate, PKRP) and transurethral resection of prostate (transurethral resection of prostate TURP). The differences were included in the time of operation, the amount of bleeding, the time of catheter indwelling, the time of bladder irrigation after operation, the time of hospitalization after operation, and the effective index of RUV in IPSS QmaxQOL score. Methods: the literature was first checked by electronic retrieval and manual retrieval. The electronic retrieval database included the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CENTRAL) Medline database and the CEBM\ CCD database of evidence-based medicine in China. All the randomized controlled trials of PKRP and TURP for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were searched. The search time of (RCT), was built up to January 31, 2014. To retrieve by hand the Chinese Journal of Urology and surgery, etc. (RCT), data from randomized controlled trials involving transurethral bipolar plasma resection (transuretheral plasmakinetic resection of prostate, PKRP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) were independently extracted by two researchers. The quality of methodology included in the study is based on the Jadad quality scoring standard, and the statistical data are analyzed by RevMan5.2, a special Meta analysis software provided by the Cochrane Cooperative Network. Results 564 Chinese and 64 foreign literatures were first examined. The results of Meta-analysis showed that the blood loss during (min), operation, continuous bladder irrigation time (d) after (mL), and hospitalization time after (d), in (min), group were included in 15 RCT articles (4 articles in English and 11 articles in Chinese). The results of Meta-analysis showed that the blood loss during (min), operation and the duration of continuous bladder irrigation after (mL), and the time of hospitalization after (d), of indwelling catheterization. The (d), International Prostate symptom score (IPSS),) was better than the TURP group in terms of maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax). There was no significant difference in residual urine volume (RUV) and quality of life index (QOL). Conclusion [A3] PKRP is more effective than TURP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), such as operation time, blood loss, catheter indwelling time, postoperative bladder irrigation time, postoperative hospitalization time and Qmax, etc. There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of IPSS scores and Qmaxl scores in half a year after operation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南華大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：R699.8

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 林寧峰;劉昌明;李國敏;;經(jīng)尿道等離子前列腺電切術(shù)和剜除術(shù)治療前列腺增生的臨床療效比較[J];當(dāng)代醫(yī)學(xué);2011年27期

2 劉志文,李解方,丁平,許良余;PKRP和TURP治療良性前列腺增生的療效觀察[J];南華大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(醫(yī)學(xué)版);2005年02期

3 王中華;鄧釗晉;劉玉明;;經(jīng)尿道前列腺電切術(shù)與等離子電切術(shù)治療前列腺增生的效果比較[J];中外醫(yī)療;2010年18期

4 周文生 ,李慶文,關(guān)超;經(jīng)尿道前列腺汽化電切術(shù)結(jié)合經(jīng)尿道前列腺電切術(shù)治療前列腺增生癥[J];臨床泌尿外科雜志;2004年01期

5 李新元;;TURP與PKRP治療老年良性前列腺增生的臨床對(duì)比研究[J];河南醫(yī)學(xué)研究;2013年05期

6 呂磊;章傳華;袁敬東;黃遂斌;吳維;;經(jīng)尿道前列腺電切術(shù)及等離子電切術(shù)治療重度BPH患者的療效比較[J];臨床泌尿外科雜志;2014年01期

7 徐海亮;盧學(xué)仁;吳春茹;;PKRP及TURP治療高齡高危前列腺增生癥患者的臨床比較[J];中國當(dāng)代醫(yī)藥;2012年15期

8 梅紅兵;王風(fēng);常江平;張忠林;史明;葉少波;鎮(zhèn)萬華;曾少明;吳鋒;張新濤;程建利;;經(jīng)尿道前列腺電切術(shù)與雙極等離子電切術(shù)治療良性前列腺增生的臨床比較[J];中華腔鏡泌尿外科雜志(電子版);2010年03期

9 任鵬;孫發(fā);李洪輝;陳國志;;經(jīng)尿道前列腺等離子體雙極電切術(shù)與前列腺電切術(shù)治療前列腺增生癥的臨床療效比較[J];中國實(shí)驗(yàn)方劑學(xué)雜志;2010年14期

10 陳曉華;吳斌;;兩種手術(shù)方法治療高危良性前列腺增生癥療效觀察[J];中國誤診學(xué)雜志;2010年30期

本文編號(hào)：2163118