| 胡仁保,仝墨泽,吴培.微拉激光与等离子技术治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效比较[J].安徽医药,2021,25(1):108-110. |
| 微拉激光与等离子技术治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效比较 |
| Comparison of curative effect of vela laser and plasma technology in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia |
| |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1009?6469.2021.01.027. |
| 中文关键词: 前列腺增生 激光疗法 铥 导尿管 前列腺等离子电切术 治疗结果 |
| 英文关键词: Prostatic hyperplasia Laser therapy Thulium Urinary catheters Prostate plasma ablation Treatment outcome |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1768 |
| 全文下载次数: 462 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的比较微拉激光(VLBPH)与等离子技术(PKRP)治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析合肥市第二人民医院 2013年 1月至 2018年 12月间 60例手术治疗的良性前列腺增生临床资料，其中经尿道微拉激光前列腺切除术 30例(VL组)，经尿道等离子前列腺切除术 30例(PK组)，比较两组病例的手术时间、术中出血量、持续膀胱冲洗时间、留置尿管时间、术中改为开放手术例数、术后大出血例数、术后 IPSS评分、术后 QOL评分、术后最大尿流率、术后残余尿情况。结果术前两组病人年龄、前列腺体积、 IPSS评分、 QOL评分、最大尿流率、残余尿、 PSA比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。 60例病人均一次手术成功，两组病人手术时间［VL组(56.67±14.64)min、PK组(89.13±14.66)min］、术中出血量［VL组(9.5±5.5)mL、PK组(73.33±22.18)mL］、持续膀胱冲洗时间［VL组(0.97±0.18)d、PK组(2.07±0.58)d］、留置尿管时间［VL组(2.77±0.68)d、PK组(5.5±0.86)d］比较，均差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。而术后 IPSS评分、术后 QOL评分、术后最大尿流率、术后残余尿比较，差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。结论与等离子技术相比，微拉激光汽化、切割及止血功能强大，对周围组织的热灼伤小，具有切割快、切除彻底、出血少、并发症少、安全性高及术后效果与等离子技术组相媲美等优点，值得临床推广。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective Comparison of the efficacy and safety of Vela laser and plasma technology in the treatment of benign pros? tatic hyperplasia.Methods The clinical data of 60 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia(BPH)in our hospital from January2013 toDecember 2018 were retrospectively analyzed.30 patients were treated with transurethral Vela laser resection of prostate(VL group)，30 cases were treated with transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate(PK group).The operation time，bleedingvolume，duration of bladder flushing，time of indwelling urinary catheter，the change of the time of indwelling urinary catheter，the time of operation，the situation of large bleeding after operation，postoperative IPSS score，postoperative QOL score，postoperativemaximum urinary flow rate，postoperative residual urine were compared between the two groups.Results There was no significant difference in age，prostate volume，IPSS score，score，QOL score，maximum urinary flow rate，residual urine and PSA in two groups of patients before operation(see Table 1).60 patients were operated successfully，and the operation time of the two groups［VL group:(56.67±14.64)min/PK group:(89.13±14.66)min］the amount of bleeding［VL group:(9.5±5.5)mL/PK group:(73.33±22.18)mL］，continuous bladder washing time［VL group97±0.18)d/PK group:(2.07±0.58)d］the time of indwelling urinary catheter［VL group:(2.77±0.68)d/PK group:(5.5±0.86)d］，the difference was statistically significantP＜0.05，see Table 2).The postoperative IPSS score，postoperative QOL score，postoperative maximum urinary flow rate，postoperative residual urine compari? son，the difference was not statistically significant(P＞0.05，see Table 3).Conclusion Compared with plasma technology，Vela la? ser vaporization，cutting and hemostatic function is strong，the heat of the surrounding tissue is small，with a quick cut，less bleed? ing，less complications，safety and the postoperative effect was comparable with that of PK group，it is worthy of clinical promotion. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
