Küpeli B, Yalçinkaya F, Topaloğlu H, Karabacak O, Günlüsoy B, Unal S
Urology Department, SSK Ankara State Hospital, Turkey.
J Endourol. 1998 Dec;12(6):591-4. doi: 10.1089/end.1998.12.591.
Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TVP) has been introduced as an alternative to standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with lesser morbidity. However, the efficacy of this new technique has not been well known. To compare the results of standard TURP and TVP, 76 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BFH) were divided into two groups in a randomized clinical trial. Preoperative assessment included AUA Symptom score, maximum flow rates (Qmax), digital rectal examination, serum prostate specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasonography, with biopsy if the patient was randomized to vaporization. Transrectal temperature measurements and the hemoglobin concentration of the irrigation fluid were investigated in all the patients during the procedure. Although the transrectal temperature was higher in the TVP group (0.53-1.27 degrees C; mean 0.83 degrees C), no associated complication were determined. However, blood loss was significantly lesser than with TURP (340 mL v 60 mL). Two patients in the TURP group required blood transfusions, and one had sphincteric incontinence, whereas one postoperative retention, one reoperation with bladder perforation, and one sphincteric incontinence were seen in the TVP group. On the other hand, 12-month follow-up demonstrated that the uroflow rates improved in a similar manner. The Qmax increased in the TURP and TVP groups from 8.8 and 8.3 mL/sec to 19.6 and 17.2 mL/sec, respectively. The mean AUA Symptom Score decreased from 13.7 to 7.9 and 6.1 at 6 and 12 months, respectively. In the TVP group and from 14.6 to 7.3 and 7.0 at 6 and 12 months, respectively, in the TURP group. There were significant differences in the mean catheterization time (P < 0.0001) and hospital stay (P < 0.0001) in favor of TVP. Our results suggest that TVP is a safe and effective alternative treatment for symptomatic BPH.
经尿道前列腺电汽化术(TVP)已被引入作为标准经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)的替代方法,其发病率较低。然而,这项新技术的疗效尚未为人所知。为比较标准TURP和TVP的结果,在一项随机临床试验中,将76例有症状的良性前列腺增生(BFH)患者分为两组。术前评估包括美国泌尿外科学会症状评分、最大尿流率(Qmax)、直肠指检、血清前列腺特异性抗原和经直肠超声检查,如果患者被随机分配至汽化组则进行活检。在手术过程中对所有患者进行经直肠温度测量和冲洗液血红蛋白浓度检测。虽然TVP组的经直肠温度较高(0.53 - 1.27摄氏度;平均0.83摄氏度),但未发现相关并发症。然而,失血量明显少于TURP组(340毫升对60毫升)。TURP组有2例患者需要输血,1例出现括约肌失禁,而TVP组有1例术后尿潴留、1例因膀胱穿孔再次手术和1例括约肌失禁。另一方面,12个月的随访表明,尿流率以相似的方式改善。TURP组和TVP组的Qmax分别从8.8和8.3毫升/秒增加到19.6和17.2毫升/秒。美国泌尿外科学会平均症状评分在TURP组6个月和12个月时分别从13.7降至7.9和6.1,在TVP组6个月和12个月时分别从14.6降至7.3和7.0。导尿时间(P < 0.0001)和住院时间(P < 0.0001)有显著差异,TVP更具优势。我们的结果表明,TVP是有症状BPH的一种安全有效的替代治疗方法。