| 张健,陆敬义,刘新军.经尿道前列腺钬激光剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生 53例[J].安徽医药,2021,25(8):1554-1557. |
| 经尿道前列腺钬激光剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生 53例 |
| Curative effect of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: An observation of 53 cases |
| |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1009-6469.2021.08.018 |
| 中文关键词: 前列腺增生 前列腺电切术 前列腺钬激光剜除 |
| 英文关键词: Prostatic hyperplasia Prostatectomy Holmium laser enucleation of prostate |
| 基金项目:克拉玛依市科技计划项目( JK2016-9) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1473 |
| 全文下载次数: 302 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的评价经尿道前列腺钬激光剜除术( HoLEP)治疗良性前列腺增生( BPH)的疗效。方法回顾性分析 2016年 1月至 2018年 12月克拉玛依市中心医院行前列腺手术治疗的 BPH病人 106例，接受 HoLEP手术 53例为观察组，接受经尿道前列腺电切手术( TURP)53例为对照组。比较两组手术时间、血红蛋白下降值、拔尿管时间、住院天数，术后 6个月国际前列腺症状评分( IPSS)、最大尿流率、尿失禁及术后并发症。结果观察组手术时间、前列腺切除体积、血红蛋白下降值、拔尿管时间、膀胱冲洗时间、术后住院天数分别为( 64.87±10.09)min、(39.68±11.22)g、(13.52±4.35)g/L、3(2~4)d、2(2~3)d、6(5~7)d；而对照组则分别为( 78.04±12.14)min、(30.21±5.35)g、(27.24±6.17)g/L、4(3~4)d、4(2~6)d、8(7~9)d。观察组明显优于对照组( P<0.05)。两组术后在 IPSS评分、最大尿流率、残余尿量方面，与术前相比，均差异有统计学意义( P<0.01)两组术后 IPSS评分、最大尿流率、残余尿量比较，差异无统计学意义( P>0.05)。结论 TURP和 HoLEP均是治疗 BPH安全有效的，方法， HoLEP术较 TURP术在手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、术后留置尿管时间有明显优势。在术后 IPSS评分、最大尿流率及残余尿量方面，两组差异不大。但是 HoLEP术也存在着设备费用较高，学习曲线较长等问题。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To evaluate the curative effect of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).Methods The clinical data of 53 patients undergoing HoLEP and 53 patients undergoing the trans‐urethral resection of prostate (TURP) in Central Hospital of Karamay from January 2016 to December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were assigned into observation group (HoLEP group) and control group (TURP group). A comparison was made between the two groups of the operation time, hemoglobin reduction in preoperative and postoperative review, postoperative withdrawal ofcatheter time, postoperative length of stay, international prostate symptom score (IPSS) at 6 months after surgery, maximum urine flowrate, urinary incontinence and postoperative complications.Results The operation time, prostatectomy volume, hemoglobin reductionvalue, withdrawal of catheter time, bladder irrigation time, and postoperative length of stay were (64.87±10.09) min, (39.68±11.22) g,(13.52±4.35) g/L, 3 (2-4) days, 2 (2-3) days, and 6 (5-7) days respectively in the observation group and (78.04±12.14) min, (30.21± 5.35) g, (27.24±6.17) g/L, 4 (3-4) days, 4 (2-6) days, and 8 (7-9) days respectively in the control group. The observation group was significantly superior to the control group (P<0.05). With regard to postoperative follow-up IPSS score, maximum urine flow rate, and residual urine volume, there were significant differences between post-operation and pre-operation of the two groups (P<0.01), while there were no signficant differences in post-operative values between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion Both TURP and HoLEP are safe and effective methods for the treatment of BPH. HoLEP shows obvious advantages over TURP in respect of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative time of inurethral catheter. However, no significant differences were observed in postoperative IPSS score, maximum urine flow rate, and residual urine volume between the two groups. Yet HoLEP is also confronted withsuch problems as higher equipment costs and longer learning curves. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
