Bertrand J, Gambini A, Cazalaa J B, Louville Y, Cukier J, Cara M
J Urol (Paris). 1981;87(1):1-4.
It is accepted that the laboratory and clinical so-called "transurethral resection syndrome" reflects passage into the body of a large fraction of the water used to perfuse the field of endoscopic resection. The major complete syndrome (dyspnoea, nausea, hypertension, raised central venous pressure, bradycardia then pulmonary oedema, cerebral oedema, cardiovascular shock and renal insufficiency) is rare: 1.5 per cent of cases of transurethral resection of the prostate in the literature, 0.6% in a series of the last 300 resections performed by the authors (2/300). Also was it not possible to hope for a complete physiological study of sufferers from this complication. Nevertheless, it may be considered that all transurethral resections of the prostate may be associated with similar movements of water to a minimal extent. In order to attempt to demonstrate this, the authors studied in a series of 19 patients pre- and postoperative blood volumes by a radio-immunological technique using pre- and postoperative serum albumin haematocrits. In this short series, patients who had undergone a short endoscopic resection (35 minutes on average) of a small adenoma (13 grams on average) with a mean irrigation of 10 litres of water rendered isotonic by the addition of glycocolle, without any transfusion or infusion being necessary during the course of the resection, the conclusion was simple: no variation in blood volume was demonstrated. Is the physiopathological hypothesis advanced to explain this phenomenon false? And is the problem in fact one of peroperative septicaemia?
人们普遍认为,实验室和临床所谓的“经尿道切除综合征”反映了用于冲洗内镜切除视野的大部分水进入了体内。严重的完整综合征(呼吸困难、恶心、高血压、中心静脉压升高、心动过缓继而肺水肿、脑水肿、心血管休克和肾功能不全)很少见:文献中前列腺经尿道切除术病例的发生率为1.5%,作者进行的最近300例切除术系列中的发生率为0.6%(2/300)。而且也不可能对这种并发症的患者进行完整的生理学研究。然而,可以认为所有前列腺经尿道切除术在最小程度上都可能伴有类似的水的移动。为了试图证明这一点,作者通过放射免疫技术,利用术前和术后血清白蛋白血细胞比容,对19例患者术前和术后的血容量进行了研究。在这个简短的系列中,患者接受了平均35分钟的小腺瘤(平均13克)的短内镜切除术,平均冲洗10升通过添加甘氨酸而变为等渗的水,在切除过程中无需任何输血或输液,得出的结论很简单:未显示血容量有变化。为解释这一现象而提出的生理病理假说是否错误?而这个问题实际上是术中败血症的问题吗?