Wang Jian-Wen, Zhang Meng-Dong, Ping Hao, Wang Ming-Shuai, Lei Hong-En, Xing Nian-Zeng, Zhang Xiao-Dong
Department of Urology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100020, China.
Department of Urology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100021, China.
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2018 Dec;24(12):1084-1088.
To evaluate the clinical effects of plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKERP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in the treatment of BPH.
We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data on 78 BPH patients treated by PKERP (n = 38) or HoLEP (n = 40) from January 2016 to October 2017. We recorded the operation time, intraoperative hemoglobin level, catheter-indwelling time, bladder irrigation time, hospital stay, 6-month postoperative IPSS, quality of life (QOL), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine (PVR), PSA level, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and postoperative complications, and compared the obtained parameters between the two groups and some of them with the baseline.
In comparison with the baseline, both the PKERP and HoLEP groups showed statistically significant differences at 6 months after surgery in the QOL score (4.82 ± 0.56 and 4.70 ± 0.67 vs 2.44 ± 0.69 and 2.92 ± 0.49, P < 0.01), IPSS (19.52 ± 4.96 and 19.44 ± 4.08 vs 9.56 ± 2.5 and 9.81 ± 2.5, P < 0.01), Qmax (［4.54 ± 1.86］ and ［4.42 ± 2.89］ ml/s vs ［17.72 ± 3.46］ and ［17.27 ± 4.42］ ml/s, P < 0.01), and PVR (［83.73±55.33］ and ［109.65 ± 89.58］ ml vs ［19.93 ± 11.07］ and ［18.31 ± 15.03］ ml, P < 0.01). Statistically significant differences were also found between the PKERP and HoLEP groups in the reduced hemoglobin level (［21.04 ± 16.96］ vs ［7.88 ± 6.65］ g/dl, P = 0.01), catheter-indwelling time (［7.67 ± 2.27］ vs ［3.93 ± 2.18］ d, P = 0.01), bladder irrigation time (［1.67 ± 0.62］ vs ［1.3 ± 0.54］ d, P = 0.05), hospital stay (［4.22 ± 1.55］ vs ［3.26 ± 0.9］ d, P = 0.01), and 6-month postoperative QOL score (［2.44 ± 0.69］ vs ［2.92 ± 0.49］, P = 0.05), but not in the other parameters.
Both PKERP and HoLEP are safe and effective for the treatment of BPH, the former more feasible in primary hospitals, while the latter with the advantages of less bleeding, shorter catheterization and hospital stay, and higher 6-month postoperative QOL score.
评估等离子体动力前列腺剜除术（PKERP）和钬激光前列腺剜除术（HoLEP）治疗良性前列腺增生（BPH）的临床效果。
回顾性分析2016年1月至2017年10月期间接受PKERP（n = 38）或HoLEP（n = 40）治疗的78例BPH患者的临床资料。记录手术时间、术中血红蛋白水平、留置导尿管时间、膀胱冲洗时间、住院时间、术后6个月的国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量（QOL）、最大尿流率（Qmax）、残余尿量（PVR）、前列腺特异抗原（PSA）水平、国际勃起功能指数（IIEF）及术后并发症，并比较两组间及部分参数与基线的差异。
与基线相比，PKERP组和HoLEP组术后6个月时在生活质量评分（4.82±0.56和4.70±0.67 vs 2.44±0.69和2.92±0.49，P<0.01）、IPSS（19.52±4.96和19.44±4.08 vs 9.56±2.5和9.81±2.5，P<0.01）、Qmax（［4.54±1.86］和［4.42±2.89］ml/s vs ［17.72±3.46］和［17.27±4.42］ml/s，P<0.01）及PVR（［83.73±55.33］和［109.65±89.58］ml vs ［19.93±11.07］和［18.31±15.03］ml，P<0.01）方面均有统计学显著差异。PKERP组和HoLEP组在血红蛋白降低水平（［21.04±16.96］vs ［7.88±6.65］g/dl，P = 0.01）、留置导尿管时间（［7.67±2.27］vs ［3.93±2.18］d，P = 0.01）、膀胱冲洗时间（［1.67±0.62］vs ［1.3±0.54］d，P = 0.05）、住院时间（［4.22±1.55］vs ［3.26±0.9］d，P = 0.01）及术后6个月生活质量评分（［2.44±0.69］vs ［
