Saad F, Carrier S, Jolivet-Tremblay M
Service d'Urologie, CHUM, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Ann Chir. 1997;51(8):884-6.
The objectives of this study was to compare electrovaporization (EVAP) of the prostate to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). A prospective evaluation of 60 patients treated for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) was carried out between November 1994 and November 1996. Twenty five patients were treated with TURP and 35 patients with EVAP. All patients had a minimum 12 month follow-up. The results obtained were comparable in terms of surgical procedure time with a bloodless surgical field using EVAP. EVAP was advantageous in reducing the time with indwelling urinary catheter postoperatively and reducing hospital stay. At 12 month follow-up results of flow rates and symptom scores were similar for both TURP and EVAP. Reoperation rate for residual BPH in the EVAP group was higher than for TURP, suggesting that EVAP should probably be limited to smaller sized glands. This study suggests that EVAP is a viable alternative to TURP in selected patients. It requires no specialized equipment and may allow a reduction in catheterization and hospital stay.
本研究的目的是比较前列腺电汽化术(EVAP)和经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)。1994年11月至1996年11月期间,对60例接受良性前列腺增生(BPH)治疗的患者进行了前瞻性评估。25例患者接受了TURP治疗,35例患者接受了EVAP治疗。所有患者均进行了至少12个月的随访。就手术操作时间而言,使用EVAP获得的结果与无血手术视野相当。EVAP在减少术后留置导尿管时间和缩短住院时间方面具有优势。在12个月的随访中,TURP和EVAP的流速和症状评分结果相似。EVAP组残留BPH的再次手术率高于TURP组,这表明EVAP可能应限于较小尺寸的腺体。本研究表明,在选定的患者中,EVAP是TURP的一种可行替代方法。它不需要专门的设备,并且可能减少导尿和住院时间。