Shokeir A A, al-Sisi H, Farage Y M, el-Maaboud M A, Saeed M, Mutabagani H
Department of Urology, New Jeddah Clinic, Saudi Arabia.
Br J Urol. 1997 Oct;80(4):570-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00428.x.
To compare transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TUVP) with conventional transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
Seventy consecutive patients with symptomatic BPH and a prostate size of < 60 g were prospectively randomized between equal treatment groups; one group underwent standard TURP and the other TUVP. Patients were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, giving a mean (SD) duration of follow-up of 14.4 (1.9) months (range 12-17). Variables evaluated included the duration of operation, catheterization and hospital stay, and changes in blood levels of haemoglobin, haematocrit and sodium 1 h after the operation. The American Urologic Association (AUA)-7 symptom score, peak urinary flow rate (Qmax), post-voiding residual urine volume (PVR) and sexual function were also evaluated during the follow-up.
Patients of both groups were balanced for the different baseline variables. The mean (SD) operative duration of TUVP was 52 (12.5) min, significantly longer than that of TURP, at 39.7 (8.8) min (P < 0.001). One hour after TURP, patients had significantly lower levels of haemoglobin, haematocrit and Na. The mean (SD) duration of catheterization after TURP was 2 (0.8) days, significantly more than after TUVP, at 1.1 (0.4) days (P < 0.001). The mean (SD) hospital stay was 2.5 (1) days after TURP and 1.5 (0.7) after TUVP (P < 0.001). Compared with baseline values, the AUA-7 symptom score, Qmax and PVR improved significantly in both groups at all intervals of follow-up and there were no significant differences between the groups during the follow-up. None of 15 potent men undergoing TURP and two of 18 potent men undergoing TUVP complained of impotence during the follow-up.
TUVP is as effective as TURP in the treatment of BPH in men with a prostate size of < 60 g. TUVP has the advantages of less blood loss, less absorption of irrigant and a shorter hospital stay, but it had a significantly longer operative duration.
比较经尿道前列腺电汽化术（TUVP）与传统经尿道前列腺切除术（TURP）治疗良性前列腺增生（BPH）男性患者的效果。
70例有症状的BPH且前列腺体积<60 g的连续患者被前瞻性随机分为两个治疗组；一组接受标准TURP，另一组接受TUVP。在基线时以及治疗后1、3、6和12个月对患者进行评估，平均（标准差）随访时间为14.4（1.9）个月（范围12 - 17个月）。评估的变量包括手术时间、导尿时间和住院时间，以及术后1小时血红蛋白、血细胞比容和血钠水平的变化。在随访期间还评估了美国泌尿外科学会（AUA）-7症状评分、最大尿流率（Qmax）、排尿后残余尿量（PVR）和性功能。
两组患者在不同基线变量方面具有均衡性。TUVP的平均（标准差）手术时间为52（12.5）分钟，显著长于TURP的39.7（8.8）分钟（P < 0.001）。TURP术后1小时，患者的血红蛋白、血细胞比容和血钠水平显著降低。TURP后的平均（标准差）导尿时间为2（0.8）天，显著长于TUVP后的1.1（0.4）天（P < 0.001）。TURP后的平均（标准差）住院时间为2.5（1）天，TUVP后为1.5（0.7）天（P < 0.001）。与基线值相比，两组在所有随访时间点的AUA - 7症状评分、Qmax和PVR均显著改善，且随访期间两组间无显著差异。15例接受TURP的性功能正常男性和18例接受TUVP的性功能正常男性中，随访期间均无阳痿主诉。
对于前列腺体积<60 g的男性BPH患者，TUVP与TURP治疗效果相当。TUVP具有失血少、灌洗液吸收少和住院时间短的优点，但手术时间显著更长。
