中国微创外科杂志
中國微創外科雜誌
중국미창외과잡지
Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery
2015年
11期
986-989
,共4页
杨盛%刘佳%张军%赵纪宇
楊盛%劉佳%張軍%趙紀宇
양성%류가%장군%조기우
前列腺增生%2 μm激光%经尿道等离子前列腺电切术%疗效
前列腺增生%2 μm激光%經尿道等離子前列腺電切術%療效
전렬선증생%2 μm격광%경뇨도등리자전렬선전절술%료효
Prostate hyperplasia%2 μm laser%Transurethral resection of the prostate%Efficacy
目的:比较2μm激光前列腺汽化切除术与经尿道等离子前列腺电切术治疗良性前列腺增生( benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)的效果。方法采用密闭信封法将2013年10月~2014年12月62例BPH分为电切组(35例,经尿道等离子前列腺电切术)和激光组(27例,RevoLix 2μm激光前列腺汽化切除术)。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后膀胱冲洗盐水量、术后导尿管留置时间、住院时间及并发症;比较2组术后3个月国际前列腺症状评分( international prostate symptom score, IPSS)、前列腺增生生活质量评分( quality of life, QOL)、最大尿流率( Qmax)及膀胱残余尿量( post-void residual volume, PVR)。结果2组手术时间差异无显著性( P>0.05)。激光组术中出血量、术后膀胱冲洗液用量、术后导尿管留置时间及住院时间、并发症发生率均明显优于电切组[(202.4±44.2) ml vs.(750.5±86.3) ml, t=-30.061, P=0.000;(9.5±2.1) L vs.(22.1±5.3) L, t=-11.650, P=0.000;(1.7±0.3) d vs.(3.4±0.6) d, t=-13.464, P=0.000;(4.2±1.3) d vs.(6.7±1.4) d, t=-7.190, P=0.000;3.7%(1/27) vs.25.7%(9/35),χ2=3.953, P=0.047)]。治疗后3个月,2组IPSS及QOL评分、Qmax、PVR均较治疗前改善(P<0.05);激光组IPSS评分和残余尿量小于电切组[(6.5±1.2)分 vs.(7.2±1.3)分, t=-2.173, P=0.033;(22.4±6.4) ml vs.(45.3±13.2) ml, t=-8.284, P=0.000]。结论2μm激光汽化切除术治疗BPH安全、有效,可更好地减少残余尿量,改善术后生活质量,值得临床推广应用。
目的:比較2μm激光前列腺汽化切除術與經尿道等離子前列腺電切術治療良性前列腺增生( benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)的效果。方法採用密閉信封法將2013年10月~2014年12月62例BPH分為電切組(35例,經尿道等離子前列腺電切術)和激光組(27例,RevoLix 2μm激光前列腺汽化切除術)。比較2組手術時間、術中齣血量、術後膀胱遲洗鹽水量、術後導尿管留置時間、住院時間及併髮癥;比較2組術後3箇月國際前列腺癥狀評分( international prostate symptom score, IPSS)、前列腺增生生活質量評分( quality of life, QOL)、最大尿流率( Qmax)及膀胱殘餘尿量( post-void residual volume, PVR)。結果2組手術時間差異無顯著性( P>0.05)。激光組術中齣血量、術後膀胱遲洗液用量、術後導尿管留置時間及住院時間、併髮癥髮生率均明顯優于電切組[(202.4±44.2) ml vs.(750.5±86.3) ml, t=-30.061, P=0.000;(9.5±2.1) L vs.(22.1±5.3) L, t=-11.650, P=0.000;(1.7±0.3) d vs.(3.4±0.6) d, t=-13.464, P=0.000;(4.2±1.3) d vs.(6.7±1.4) d, t=-7.190, P=0.000;3.7%(1/27) vs.25.7%(9/35),χ2=3.953, P=0.047)]。治療後3箇月,2組IPSS及QOL評分、Qmax、PVR均較治療前改善(P<0.05);激光組IPSS評分和殘餘尿量小于電切組[(6.5±1.2)分 vs.(7.2±1.3)分, t=-2.173, P=0.033;(22.4±6.4) ml vs.(45.3±13.2) ml, t=-8.284, P=0.000]。結論2μm激光汽化切除術治療BPH安全、有效,可更好地減少殘餘尿量,改善術後生活質量,值得臨床推廣應用。
목적:비교2μm격광전렬선기화절제술여경뇨도등리자전렬선전절술치료량성전렬선증생( benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)적효과。방법채용밀폐신봉법장2013년10월~2014년12월62례BPH분위전절조(35례,경뇨도등리자전렬선전절술)화격광조(27례,RevoLix 2μm격광전렬선기화절제술)。비교2조수술시간、술중출혈량、술후방광충세염수량、술후도뇨관류치시간、주원시간급병발증;비교2조술후3개월국제전렬선증상평분( international prostate symptom score, IPSS)、전렬선증생생활질량평분( quality of life, QOL)、최대뇨류솔( Qmax)급방광잔여뇨량( post-void residual volume, PVR)。결과2조수술시간차이무현저성( P>0.05)。격광조술중출혈량、술후방광충세액용량、술후도뇨관류치시간급주원시간、병발증발생솔균명현우우전절조[(202.4±44.2) ml vs.(750.5±86.3) ml, t=-30.061, P=0.000;(9.5±2.1) L vs.(22.1±5.3) L, t=-11.650, P=0.000;(1.7±0.3) d vs.(3.4±0.6) d, t=-13.464, P=0.000;(4.2±1.3) d vs.(6.7±1.4) d, t=-7.190, P=0.000;3.7%(1/27) vs.25.7%(9/35),χ2=3.953, P=0.047)]。치료후3개월,2조IPSS급QOL평분、Qmax、PVR균교치료전개선(P<0.05);격광조IPSS평분화잔여뇨량소우전절조[(6.5±1.2)분 vs.(7.2±1.3)분, t=-2.173, P=0.033;(22.4±6.4) ml vs.(45.3±13.2) ml, t=-8.284, P=0.000]。결론2μm격광기화절제술치료BPH안전、유효,가경호지감소잔여뇨량,개선술후생활질량,치득림상추엄응용。
Objective To compare the efficacy of 2 μm laser vaporization and transurethral resection of prostate for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia ( BPH) . Methods Sixty-two patients from October 2013 to December 2014 were randomly divided into resection group (35 cases), which was treated by transurethral resection, and vaporization group (27 cases), which was treated by RevoLix 2μm laser vaporization.All the subjects were grouped by sealed envelope technique.The operation time, bleeding volume, postoperative bladder irrigation water volume, postoperative catheter indwelling time, hospitalization time and complications of the two groups were compared.The international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL) scores, Qmax and bladder post-void residual volume ( PVR) at 3 months after treatment were also compared between the two groups. Results There was no difference in the operation time between the two groups ( P >0.05 ) .The bleeding volume, postoperative bladder irrigation fluid volume, postoperative catheter indwelling time, hospitalization time and complication rate were all better in the vaporization group than in the resection group [(202.4 ±44.2) ml vs.(750.5 ±86.3) ml, t=-30.061, P=0.000;(9.5 ±2.1) L vs.(22.1 ±5.3) L, t=-11.650, P=0.000;(1.7 ±0.3) d vs.(3.4 ±0.6) d, t=-13.464, P=0.000; (4.2 ±1.3) d vs.(6.7 ±1.4) d, t=-7.190, P=0.000;3.7% (1/27) vs.25.7% (9/35), χ2 =3.953, P=0.047)].Moreover, the IPSS scores, QOL scores, Qmax and PVR were improved in both groups at 3 months after treatment (P<0.05).The IPSS scores and PVR in the vaporization group were better than those in the resection group after operation [(6.5 ±1.2) points vs.(7.2 ±1.3) points, t=-2.173, P=0.033; (22.4 ±6.4) ml vs.(45.3 ±13.2) ml, t=-8.284, P=0.000]. Conclusion The 2μm laser vaporization resection in the treatment of BPH is safe and effective, which can significantly reduce the PVR and improve postoperative quality of life, being worthy of clinical application.