论文部分内容阅读
目的对比经尿道前列腺汽化电切术(TUVP)与经尿道双极等离子腔内前列腺剜除术(TUPKEP)治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的临床疗效,探讨经尿道双极等离子腔内前列腺剜除术的临床应用价值。方法 40例良性前列腺增生症患者,依据临床术式差异分为观察组及对照组,各20例。观察组给予经尿道双极等离子腔内前列腺剜除术治疗,对照组给予经尿道前列腺汽化电切术治疗。对比两组手术及术后相关情况。结果观察组患者的手术时间、术中失血量、前列腺切除质量、膀胱冲洗时间、住院时间均优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(t=3.4562、5.6604、2.2695、13.5696、4.2297,P<0.05)。两组患者的生活质量评分、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、残余尿量、最大尿流率对比,差异均无统计学意义(t=0.5903、0.3073、0.2768、0.5037,P>0.05)。结论临床予以经尿道双极等离子腔内前列腺剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生症,相较于经尿道前列腺汽化电切术,其具微创与术后恢复快等优势,该法深具临床推广价值。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) and transurethral bipolar plasmapapillary prostatic neoplasm (BPH) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) The clinical value of surgery. Methods Forty patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were divided into observation group and control group according to the difference of clinical operation. The observation group was given transurethral bipolar plasma intraluminal prostatectomy, and the control group was given transurethral vaporization of the prostate. Compare the two groups of surgery and postoperative related situation. Results The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, prostatectomy quality, bladder irrigation time and hospital stay in the observation group were all better than those in the control group (t = 3.4562,5.6604,2.2695,13.5696,4.2297, P <0.05 ). There was no significant difference in quality of life score, IPSS score, residual urine volume and maximum flow rate between the two groups (t = 0.5903,0.3073,0.2768,0.5037, P> 0.05). Conclusions The clinical application of transurethral bipolar plasma intraluminal prostatectomy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, compared with transurethral vaporization of the prostate, its minimally invasive and postoperative recovery advantages, the method of clinical promotion of deep value .