| 杨杰.经尿道柱状水囊前列腺扩开术与电切术治疗老年前列腺增生的效果对比[J].安徽医药,2021,25(7):1363-1366. |
| 经尿道柱状水囊前列腺扩开术与电切术治疗老年前列腺增生的效果对比 |
| Comparison of effects of transurethral split of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of elderly benign prostatic hyperplasia |
| |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1009-6469.2021.07.022 |
| 中文关键词: 前列腺增生 经尿道前列腺切除术 TUSP 前列腺电切术 尿动力学 国际前列腺症状评分 老年人 |
| 英文关键词: Prostatic hyperplasia Transurethral resection of prostate TUSP Prostate electrocision Urodynamics International prostate symptom score Aged |
| 基金项目:2015年度河南省医学科技攻关计划项目( 201504057) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1191 |
| 全文下载次数: 340 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的观察对比经尿道柱状水囊前列腺扩开术( TUSP)与电切术( TURP)治疗老年前列腺增生的效果及预后。方法选取 2016年 1月至 2018年 1月于安阳市第三人民医院接受手术治疗的 90例老年前列腺增生病人，按手术方式不同分为扩开组(接受 TUSP治疗)与电切组(接受 TURP治疗)各 45例，比较两组病人治疗后围手术期指标，尿动力学，国际前列腺症状评分与生活质量评分以及预后与并发症发生的变化情况。结果术后 3个月，扩开组与电切组的 PVR［( 15.91±2.83)mL、(16.07±2.89)mL］明显低于术前［( 68.43±11.27)mL、(68.51±11.32)mL］(P<0.05)，Qmax［( 22.48±4.13)mL/s、(22.53±4.17)mL/s］明显高于术前［( 7.96±1.41)mL/s、(8.05±1.46)mL/s］(P<0.05)，IPSS评分、 QOL评分［扩开组( 8.12±1.27)分、(2.08±0.36)分，电切组( 2.08±0.36)分、(2.15±0.40)分］明显低于术前［(25.49±8.61)分、(25.57±8.64)分，(4.26±0.73)分、(4.31±0.76)分］(P<0.05)，均差异无统计学意义( P>0.05)。术后 12个月，扩开组和电切组 PSA［(0.98±0.15)μg/L、(1.04±0.18)μg/L］明显低于术前［(5.13±0.86)μg/L、(5.02±0.79)μg/L］(P<0.05)，扩开组和电切组比较，差异无统计学意义( P>0.05)；扩开组并发症发生率低于电切组( P<0.05)。结论 TUSP与 TURP均可有效治疗老年前列腺增生，但 TUSP在改善病人围手术期指标以及并发症方面比 TURP更具有优势。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To observe and compare the effects and prognosis of transurethral split of the prostate (TUSP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of elderly benign prostatic hyperplasia.Methods A total of 90 elderly patientswith benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent surgery in the Third People' s Hospital of Anyang City from January 2016 to January2018 were selected and assigned into split group (treated with TUSP) and electric resection group (treated with TURP), with 45 cases ineach group. The perioperative indicators, urodynamics, international prostate symptom score and quality of life score, prognosis and occurrence of complications were compared between the two groups of patients.Results Compared with electric resection group, the operative time, postoperative urinary catheter indwelling time and hospital stay were shorter in split group, and the intraoperative blood losswas less. At 3 months after operation, the PVRin split group [(15.91±2.83) mL vs. (68.43±11.27) mL] and electric resection group [(16.07± 2.89) mL vs. (68.51±11.32) mL] were obviously lower than before surgery (P<0.05), while the Qmax in split group [(22.48±4.13) mL/s vs. (7.96±1.41) mL/s] and electric resection group [(22.53±4.170) mL/s vs. (8.05±1.46) mL/s] were significantly higher than those before surgery (P<0.05), and there were no significant differences between split group and electric resection group (P>0.05). The scores of IPSS and QOL in split group [IPSS: (8.12±1.27) points vs. (25.49±8.61) points], [QOL: (2.08±0.36) points vs. (25.57±8.64) points]and electric resection group [IPSS: (2.08±0.36) points vs. (4.26±0.73) points], QOL: (2.15±0.40) points vs. (4.31±0.76) points] were significantly lower than those before surgery (P<0.05), and there were no statistically significant differences between split group and electric resection group (P> 0.05). At 12 months after operation, the PSA in split group [(0.98±0.15) μg/L vs. (5.13±0.86) μg/L] and electric resection group [(1.04± 0.18) μg/L vs. (5.02±0.79) μg/L] were significantly lower than before surgery (P<0.05), and there were no significant differences at 12 months after operation between split group and electric resection group (P>0.05). The incidence rate of complications in split group was lower than that in electric resection group (P<0.05).Conclusion Both TUSP and TURP can effectively treat elderly benign prostatic hyperplasia, but TUSP is more advantageous than TURP in terms of improving perioperative indicators and complications in patients. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
