CAJ | 학술논문

目的比较经尿道前列腺汽化电切(TUVP)和经尿道前列腺等离子电切术(PKRP)两种方法治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的安全性和有效性.方法 TUVP组133例,PKRP组113例,对两者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后膀胱冲洗时间、术中电切综合征(TURS)发生率、术后国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流率(Qmax)和剩余尿量(PVR)以及术后并发症的发生率进行比较.结果两组患者术前一般情况比较无统计学差异(p＞0.05),术后I-PSS、QOL、Qmax、RUV与术前比较均有显著性差异(p＜0.01),但两组间比较无显著性差异(p＞0.05).手术时间PKRP组明显长于TUVP组.术中出血量、术后膀胱冲洗时间PKRP组明显小于TUVP组.术后尿路刺激症状PURP明显少于TUVP组.结论 PKRP与TUVP对治疗BPH均安全有效,但PKRP术中出血较少,术后并发症率低,但手术时间较长.
목적 비교경뇨도전렬선기화전절(TUVP)화경뇨도전렬선등리자전절술(PKRP)량충방법치료량성전렬선증생증(BPH)적안전성화유효성.방법 TUVP조133례,PKRP조113례,대량자적수술시간、술중출혈량、술후방광충세시간、술중전절종합정(TURS)발생솔、술후국제전렬선증상평분(IPSS)、생활질량평분(QOL)、최대뇨류솔(Qmax)화잉여뇨량(PVR)이급술후병발증적발생솔진행비교.결과 량조환자술전일반정황비교무통계학차이(p＞0.05),술후I-PSS、QOL、Qmax、RUV여술전비교균유현저성차이(p＜0.01),단량조간비교무현저성차이(p＞0.05).수술시간PKRP조명현장우TUVP조.술중출혈량、술후방광충세시간PKRP조명현소우TUVP조.술후뇨로자격증상PURP명현소우TUVP조.결론 PKRP여TUVP대치료BPH균안전유효,단PKRP술중출혈교소,술후병발증솔저,단수술시간교장.
Objectives To assess the clinical efficacy and feasibility of transurethral eletrovapporization resection of prostate (TUVP) and transurethral plasma kinetic resection of prostate (PKRP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).Methods The surgical procedures of 246 cases with BPH were analyzed retrospectively.The operation time,blood loss,the mean bladder irrigating time,TURS occurring rate,international prostate symptom score (I-PSS),quality of life (QOL),maximum flow rate (Qmax),post void residua (PVR) and complications rate were compared.Results There were 133 and 113 cases perfomed by the methods of TUVP and PKRP respectively.There were no significant differences of preoperative factors between two groups (p ＞ 0.05).IPSS,QOL,Qmax,PVR were improved in two groups post-operatively (p ＜0.01),and there was no significant differences among the two groups (p ＞ 0.05).The blood loss and the mean bladder irrigating time were significant shorter in PKRP than in TUVP.Postoperative (3 months) lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) occurred most frequently in TUVP.Conclusions Two surgical methods are all effective to the treatment of BPH.And PKRP have an advantage on the less blood loss and lower complications,but longer operative time than TUVP.