{"title":"[治疗良性前列腺增生的铥激光去核术与等离子体动能前列腺切除术]。","authors":"Wei-Dong Zhang, Wen-Jia Wang, Zhi-Qiang Song, Zhe Ma, Jia-Wei Zhang, Hao-Hao Wang, Jian-Chen Wu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) with plasma kinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in the treatment of BPH.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 160 cases of BPH treated by ThuLEP (the observation group, n = 80) or PKRP (the control group, n = 80) in our hospital from January 2021 to December 2023. We recorded the operation time, bladder irrigation time, catheter retention time, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, and pre- and postoperative maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), residual urine volume (PVR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate volume, followed by comparison of the data obtained between the two groups of patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with the controls, the patients of the observation group showed significantly shorter operation time ([67.25 ± 7.24] vs [60.10 ± 5.15] min, P< 0.05), bladder irrigation time ([46.90 ± 10.77] vs [43.24 ± 6.65] h, P< 0.05), catheterization time ([5.60 ± 1.31] vs [5.03 ± 1.24] d, P< 0.05) and hospitalization time ([7.31 ± 2.00] vs [6.55 ± 1.67] d, P< 0.05), higher Qmax ([18.50 ± 1.24] vs [20.68 ± 1.45] ml/s, P< 0.05), lower PVR ([12.10 ± 3.53] vs [10.82 ± 3.10] ml, P< 0.05), PSA ([4.60 ± 0.78] vs [3.38 ± 0.40] μg/L, P< 0.05) and prostate volume ([25.35 ± 6.46] vs [20.12 ± 5.13] ml, P< 0.05) at 3 months after surgery, but no statistically significant difference in the total incidence of postoperative complications (7.50% [6/80] vs 5.00% [4/80], P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ThuLEP, with its advantages of notable effect, short operation and hospitalization time, significant improvement of urinary flow dynamics and prostate function, deserves clinical promotion for the treatment of BPH.</p>","PeriodicalId":24012,"journal":{"name":"中华男科学杂志","volume":"30 6","pages":"514-518"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Thulium laser enucleation versus plasma kinetic resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia].\",\"authors\":\"Wei-Dong Zhang, Wen-Jia Wang, Zhi-Qiang Song, Zhe Ma, Jia-Wei Zhang, Hao-Hao Wang, Jian-Chen Wu\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) with plasma kinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in the treatment of BPH.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 160 cases of BPH treated by ThuLEP (the observation group, n = 80) or PKRP (the control group, n = 80) in our hospital from January 2021 to December 2023. We recorded the operation time, bladder irrigation time, catheter retention time, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, and pre- and postoperative maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), residual urine volume (PVR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate volume, followed by comparison of the data obtained between the two groups of patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with the controls, the patients of the observation group showed significantly shorter operation time ([67.25 ± 7.24] vs [60.10 ± 5.15] min, P< 0.05), bladder irrigation time ([46.90 ± 10.77] vs [43.24 ± 6.65] h, P< 0.05), catheterization time ([5.60 ± 1.31] vs [5.03 ± 1.24] d, P< 0.05) and hospitalization time ([7.31 ± 2.00] vs [6.55 ± 1.67] d, P< 0.05), higher Qmax ([18.50 ± 1.24] vs [20.68 ± 1.45] ml/s, P< 0.05), lower PVR ([12.10 ± 3.53] vs [10.82 ± 3.10] ml, P< 0.05), PSA ([4.60 ± 0.78] vs [3.38 ± 0.40] μg/L, P< 0.05) and prostate volume ([25.35 ± 6.46] vs [20.12 ± 5.13] ml, P< 0.05) at 3 months after surgery, but no statistically significant difference in the total incidence of postoperative complications (7.50% [6/80] vs 5.00% [4/80], P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ThuLEP, with its advantages of notable effect, short operation and hospitalization time, significant improvement of urinary flow dynamics and prostate function, deserves clinical promotion for the treatment of BPH.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":24012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华男科学杂志\",\"volume\":\"30 6\",\"pages\":\"514-518\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华男科学杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华男科学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的比较铥激光前列腺剜除术(ThuLEP)与等离子体前列腺动力切除术(PKRP)在治疗前列腺增生症中的效果:回顾性分析我院2021年1月至2023年12月采用ThuLEP(观察组,n = 80)或PKRP(对照组,n = 80)治疗的160例前列腺增生症病例的病历。我们记录了两组患者的手术时间、膀胱冲洗时间、导尿管留置时间、住院时间、术后并发症以及术前术后最大尿流率(Qmax)、残余尿量(PVR)、前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)和前列腺体积,并对两组患者的数据进行了比较:与对照组相比,观察组患者的手术时间([67.25 ± 7.24] vs [60.10 ± 5.15] min,P< 0.05)、膀胱冲洗时间([46.90 ± 10.77] vs [43.24±6.65]h,P<0.05)、导尿时间([5.60±1.31] vs [5.03±1.24]d,P<0.05)、住院时间([7.31±2.00] vs [6.55±1.67]d,P<0.05)、更高的Qmax([18.50±1.24] vs [20.68±1.45]ml/s,P<0.05)、PVR([12.10±3.53] vs [10.82±3.10]ml,P<0.05)、PSA([4.60±0.78] vs [3.38±0.40]μg/L,P<0.05)、前列腺体积([25.35±6.46] vs [20.12±5.13]ml,P<0.05),但术后并发症总发生率差异无统计学意义(7.50% [6/80] vs 5.00% [4/80],P>0.05):ThuLEP治疗良性前列腺增生症具有疗效显著、手术及住院时间短、尿流动力学及前列腺功能改善明显等优点,值得临床推广应用。
[Thulium laser enucleation versus plasma kinetic resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia].
Objective: To compare thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) with plasma kinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in the treatment of BPH.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 160 cases of BPH treated by ThuLEP (the observation group, n = 80) or PKRP (the control group, n = 80) in our hospital from January 2021 to December 2023. We recorded the operation time, bladder irrigation time, catheter retention time, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, and pre- and postoperative maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), residual urine volume (PVR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate volume, followed by comparison of the data obtained between the two groups of patients.
Results: Compared with the controls, the patients of the observation group showed significantly shorter operation time ([67.25 ± 7.24] vs [60.10 ± 5.15] min, P< 0.05), bladder irrigation time ([46.90 ± 10.77] vs [43.24 ± 6.65] h, P< 0.05), catheterization time ([5.60 ± 1.31] vs [5.03 ± 1.24] d, P< 0.05) and hospitalization time ([7.31 ± 2.00] vs [6.55 ± 1.67] d, P< 0.05), higher Qmax ([18.50 ± 1.24] vs [20.68 ± 1.45] ml/s, P< 0.05), lower PVR ([12.10 ± 3.53] vs [10.82 ± 3.10] ml, P< 0.05), PSA ([4.60 ± 0.78] vs [3.38 ± 0.40] μg/L, P< 0.05) and prostate volume ([25.35 ± 6.46] vs [20.12 ± 5.13] ml, P< 0.05) at 3 months after surgery, but no statistically significant difference in the total incidence of postoperative complications (7.50% [6/80] vs 5.00% [4/80], P > 0.05).
Conclusion: ThuLEP, with its advantages of notable effect, short operation and hospitalization time, significant improvement of urinary flow dynamics and prostate function, deserves clinical promotion for the treatment of BPH.
期刊介绍:
National journal of andrology was founded in June 1995. It is a core journal of andrology and reproductive medicine, published monthly, and is publicly distributed at home and abroad. The main columns include expert talks, monographs (basic research, clinical research, evidence-based medicine, traditional Chinese medicine), reviews, clinical experience exchanges, case reports, etc. Priority is given to various fund-funded projects, especially the 12th Five-Year National Support Plan and the National Natural Science Foundation funded projects. This journal is included in about 20 domestic databases, including the National Science and Technology Paper Statistical Source Journal (China Science and Technology Core Journal), the Source Journal of the China Science Citation Database, the Statistical Source Journal of the China Academic Journal Comprehensive Evaluation Database (CAJCED), the Full-text Collection Journal of the China Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Overview of the Chinese Core Journals (2017 Edition), and the Source Journal of the Top Academic Papers of China's Fine Science and Technology Journals (F5000). It has been included in the full text of the American Chemical Abstracts, the American MEDLINE, the American EBSCO, and the database.