Suppr超能文献

标准经尿道前列腺切除术、经尿道前列腺汽化切除术与钬激光前列腺剜除术治疗前列腺重量>40克的良性前列腺增生症的比较。

Comparison of standard transurethral resection, transurethral vapour resection and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia of >40 g.

作者信息

Gupta Narmada, Kumar Rajeev, Dogra Prem N, Seth Amlesh

机构信息

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Department of Urology, New Delhi, India.

出版信息

BJU Int. 2006 Jan;97(1):85-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05862.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of two alternatives for surgically treating symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), i.e. transurethral vapour resection of the prostate (TUVRP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HOLEP), with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), the standard surgical therapy, as treating large prostates is associated with greater morbidity, and to date there is no simultaneous comparison of these three methods.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively randomized 150 patients (50 in each group) with BPH and glands of >40 g to undergo either TURP, TUVRP or HOLEP. The evaluation before treatment included urine culture, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level estimation, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), peak urinary flow rate (Q(max)), and transabdominal ultrasonography to estimate prostate size and postvoid urine residue (PVR). The operative duration, blood loss, resected tissue weight, change in levels of haemoglobin and serum sodium, nursing contact time, duration of catheterization, and complications were noted. After surgery patients were reassessed for the IPSS, Q(max) and PVR at 6 months and 1 year.

RESULTS

The patients in all three groups had comparable characteristics before surgery. The mean operating duration and intraoperative irrigant used for TUVRP was less than for HOLEP or TURP, and blood loss with HOLEP and TUVRP was less than with TURP (all P < 0.001). Postoperative irrigation, nursing contact time, and catheter duration were significantly less for HOLEP than TURP or TUVRP, and for TUVRP than TURP. At follow-up, patients in all groups had a significant improvement from baseline in IPSS, Q(max,) and PVR, but the differences between the groups were not significant at 6 months or 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

HOLEP and TUVRP are both acceptable alternatives to TURP for treating large prostate glands, with less perioperative morbidity and comparable efficacy at 6 months and 1 year.

摘要

目的

比较经尿道前列腺汽化切除术(TUVRP)和钬激光前列腺剜除术(HOLEP)这两种治疗有症状良性前列腺增生(BPH)的手术方法与标准手术治疗方法经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)的安全性和有效性,因为治疗大体积前列腺会伴随更高的发病率,且迄今为止尚无这三种方法的同步比较。

患者与方法

我们前瞻性地将150例BPH且前列腺重量>40g的患者(每组50例)随机分为接受TURP、TUVRP或HOLEP治疗。治疗前评估包括尿培养、血清前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)水平测定、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、最大尿流率(Q(max))以及经腹部超声检查以评估前列腺体积和残余尿量(PVR)。记录手术时长、失血量、切除组织重量、血红蛋白和血清钠水平变化、护理接触时间、导尿持续时间及并发症情况。术后6个月和1年对患者进行IPSS、Q(max)和PVR的重新评估。

结果

三组患者术前特征具有可比性。TUVRP的平均手术时长和术中冲洗液用量少于HOLEP或TURP,HOLEP和TUVRP的失血量少于TURP(均P<0.001)。HOLEP术后冲洗、护理接触时间和导尿持续时间显著少于TURP或TUVRP,TUVRP少于TURP。随访时,所有组患者的IPSS、Q(max)和PVR较基线均有显著改善,但6个月和1年时组间差异不显著。

结论

对于治疗大体积前列腺,HOLEP和TUVRP均是TURP可接受的替代方法,围手术期发病率较低,且在6个月和1年时疗效相当。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验