切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (06) : 387 -391. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2019.06.007

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

半导体激光选择性增生腺体块状切除术与电切术治疗前列腺增生的比较
王伟1, 潘铁军1, 高磊1, 齐永1,(), 李功成1   
  1. 1. 430070 武汉,南方医科大学武汉临床医学院,中国人民解放军中部战区总医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-07-07 出版日期:2019-12-01
  • 通信作者: 齐永
  • 基金资助:
    湖北省卫生健康委科研基金资助(WJ2019H095)

Comparative study of the safety and efficacy between the 1 470 nm laser resection of the prostate-selective massive and transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Wei Wang1, Tiejun Pan1, Lei Gao1, Yong Qi1,(), Gongcheng Li1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Central War Zone General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Wuhan 430070, China
  • Received:2019-07-07 Published:2019-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Yong Qi
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Qi Yong, Email:
引用本文:

王伟, 潘铁军, 高磊, 齐永, 李功成. 半导体激光选择性增生腺体块状切除术与电切术治疗前列腺增生的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(06): 387-391.

Wei Wang, Tiejun Pan, Lei Gao, Yong Qi, Gongcheng Li. Comparative study of the safety and efficacy between the 1 470 nm laser resection of the prostate-selective massive and transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(06): 387-391.

目的

比较1 470 nm激光选择性前列腺增生腺体块状切除术(LRP-SM)与经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗前列腺增生(BPH)的疗效和安全性。

方法

回顾性分析2018年2月至2019年2月我科收治的98例BPH患者,52例行LRP-SM,46例行TURP。记录两组患者的手术时间、血红蛋白下降值、膀胱持续冲洗时间、留置导尿管时间、住院时间及术后并发症等。评估术前及术后3个月国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、残余尿量(PVR)、最大尿流率(Qmax)等。

结果

LRP-SM组与TURP组的手术时间[(42.2±16.3)min vs(58.4±18.2)min]、术后血红蛋白下降值[(2.4±0.8)g/L vs (4.5±1.6)g/L]、膀胱持续冲洗时间[(1.5±0.2)d vs (2.4±0.3)d]、留置导尿管时间[(2.4±0.3)d vs (4.6±2.4)d]、住院时间[(5.3±1.1)dvs (7.6±1.4)d]比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术后3个月IPSS、QOL、PVR及Qmax显著优于术前(P<0.05),但两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。TURP组2例因术后出血予以输血治疗,LRP-SM组无输血病例。TURP组3例和LRP-SM组1例有不同程度短暂性尿失禁,随访术后1~3月恢复正常。TURP组术后有1例尿道狭窄或膀胱颈挛缩需要再次行手术治疗,LRP-SM组无尿道狭窄或膀胱颈挛缩病例。TURP组16例和LRP-SM组4例有逆行射精。LRP-SM组并发症较少,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

LRP-SM和TURP治疗BPH效果相当,但与TURP比较,LRP-SM具有出血风险少、恢复快、并发症发生率较低等优势,特别适合高龄、高危以及对性功能有需求的患者。

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of the two surgical approaches, 1 470 nm laser resection of the prostate-selective massive (LRP-SM) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods

From February 2018 to February 2019, 98 cases of BPH were enrolled, 52 cases underwent LRP-SM, while 46 cases were treated by TURP. The operative time, hemoglobin, duration of postoperative bladder irrigation, indwelling catheterization time, hospital stay and the postoperative complications were recorded. The international prostate symptoms score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), post-voiding residual urine (PVR), maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) were also compared.

Results

Patients in the LRP-SM group displayed shorter operative time [(42.2±16.3) min vs (58.4±18.2) min, P<0.05], lower risk of haemorrhage, Haemoglobin decrease [(2.4±0.8) g/L vs (4.5±1.6) g/L, P<0.05], shorter bladder irrigation [(1.5±0.2) d vs (2.4±0.3) d, P<0.05] and shorter catheter indwelling [(2.4±0.3) d vs (4.6±2.4) d, P<0.05], as well as shorter hospital stays [(5.3±1.1) d vs (7.6±1.4) d, P<0.05]. The IPSS, QOL, PVR and Qmax were significantly improved after 3 months postoperatively in both groups (P<0.05), but there were no significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05). 2 cases required blood transfusion in the TURP group after operation while none in the LRP-SM group. The incontinence presented in both groups (3 patients in the TURP group and 1 in the LRP-SM group), but all recovered within 1-3 months. Re-operations due to the urethral stricture and bladder neck contracture were needed in 1 case in the TURP group while none in the LRP-SM group. Etrograde ejaculation was reported in 16 cases of the TURP group and 4 cases in the LRP-SM group. Perioperative complications were fewer in the LRP-SM group (P<0.05).

Conclusions

LRP-SM is an excellent treatment for BPH as well as TURP. However, compared with TURP, LRP-SM has the advantages of less risk of bleeding, rapid recovery, and lower incidence of complications, and it is especially suitable for patients with advanced age, high risk and sexual function needed.

表1 LRP-SM组与TURP组术前各项指标比较(±s
视频1 激光前列腺增生腺体块状切除
表2 LRP-SM组与TURP组围手术期各项指标比较(±s
表3 LRP-SM组与TURP组术后3个月随访指标比较(±s
[1]
Roehrborn CG. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: an overview[J]. Rev Urol, 2005, 7 (Suppl 9): S3-S14.
[2]
Young MJ, Elmussareh M, Morrison T, et al. The changing practice of transurethral resection of the prostate[J]. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2018, 100(4): 326-329.
[3]
吕蔡,白志明. 激光技术在前列腺增生治疗中的应用[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2014, 8(1): 58-61.
[4]
Pirola GM, Saredi G, Codas Duarte R,et al. Holmium laser versus thulium laser enucleation of the prostate: a matched-pair analysis from two centers[J]. Ther Adv Urol, 2018, 10(8): 223-233.
[5]
Wezel F, Wendt-Nordahl G, Huck N, et a1. New alternatives for laser Vaporization of the prostate:experimental evaluation of a 980-,1,318-and l, 470-nm diode laser device[J]. World J Urol, 2010, 28(2): 181-186.
[6]
江东根,肖楚天,庞俊, 等. 1 470 nm激光顺行法前列腺剜除术治疗前列腺增生[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(1): 4-7.
[7]
Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, et, al. The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age[J]. J Urol, 1984, 132(3): 474-479
[8]
孙颖浩,许传亮,钱松溪, 等. 前列腺部分电切术在高危前列腺增生症中的应用. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 1997, 18: 616-618
[9]
Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A, et al. Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients[J]. J Urol, 2008, 180(1):246-249.
[10]
Nnabugwu I I, Ugwumba FO, Udeh EI, et al. Learning transurethral resection of the prostate: A comparison of the weight of resected specimen to the weight of enucleated specimen in open prostatectomy[J]. Nigerian journal of clinical practice, 2017, 20(12): 1590-1595.
[11]
叶敏,朱英坚,王伟明, 等. 经尿道前列腺电切术与汽化切除术的并发症分析[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2006, 8(3): 563-566.
[12]
Pavone C, Abbadessa D, Scaduto G,et,al. Sexual dysfunctions after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): evidence from a retrospective study on 264 patients[J]. Arch Ital Urol Androl, 2015, 87(1): 8-13
[13]
潘铁军,刘波,文瀚东, 等. 保留膀胱颈的前列腺剜除术对性功能的影响及处理[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2013, 2(3): 192-194.
[14]
李义,叶敏,王加强, 等. 经尿道前列腺汽化电切术后尿道狭窄的防治[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2005, 26(2): 121-124.
[15]
Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, et al. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)-incidence, management, and prevention[J]. Eur Urol, 2006, 50(5): 969-980.
[1] 熊风, 林辉煌, 陈晓波. 铥激光在泌尿外科中的临床应用及研究进展[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 533-536.
[2] 韩广玮, 申雪晴, 吴涵潇, 曹炎武, 唐黎明. 前列腺增生并轻度尿道狭窄行去外鞘半导体激光汽化剜除与等离子电切的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 490-494.
[3] 李全喜, 唐辉军, 唐友杰, 杨飞. DISCO成像技术在前列腺增生与前列腺癌鉴别诊断中的应用价值[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 332-335.
[4] 赖良海, 赵伟, 肖云新, 杨伟明, 陈光耀. 1 470 nm激光"平均三分法"剜除术与等离子剜除术治疗前列腺增生的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 252-256.
[5] 李国峰, 李显文, 周祥福, 何昊麟, 杜红兵, 宾开云. 单极滚珠电极与等离子行经尿道前列腺剜除术的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 247-251.
[6] 游猛, 顾志文, 宋生生, 张贺庆, 詹河涓. 等离子电切术与钬激光剜除术治疗体积>80 ml前列腺增生的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 44-49.
[7] 邹志辉, 张礼刚, 胡永涛, 牛迪, 陈佳, 葛秦涛, 尹水平, 杨诚, 施浩强, 邰胜, 周骏, 郝宗耀, 梁朝朝. 无线智能高清内镜在经尿道双极等离子解剖性前列腺剜除术中的应用初探[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 39-43.
[8] 顾志波, 苏倩, 陈建刚, 陆明. 低功率钬激光与等离子剜除治疗中等体积前列腺增生的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 496-500.
[9] 邹志辉, 张礼刚, 梁朝朝. 电外科和激光平台等技术在前列腺增生日间手术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 489-495.
[10] 万颂, 华伟, 兰红梅, 骆正馨, 万跃平. 前列腺钬激光整块剜除术与经尿道前列腺电切术治疗前列腺增生的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 427-431.
[11] 董毅, 杨濛, 王正, 江爱民, 张宗勤, 吴震杰, 王林辉, 徐红, 刘冰. 经尿道等离子杆状电极解剖性前列腺剜除术的手术经验与临床疗效[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 413-418.
[12] 许立哲, 夏煜琦, 程帆. 前列腺尿道悬吊术治疗前列腺增生的进展[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 385-388.
[13] 刘爽, 张彬, 原小斌, 胡雅玲, 吴晓琳, 王东文. 经尿道电切术、剜除术及扩裂术治疗前列腺增生远期并发症的研究进展[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(04): 377-380.
[14] 王德胜, 许存前, 甄帅. 三重改良技术的前列腺等离子剜除术对于尿控功能保护的临床研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(04): 331-334.
[15] 张宁, 张梦菲, 邱建新, 高闫尧, 陈育, 高靖榆. 腹腔镜下经尿道等离子电切术联合疝环充填式无张力疝修补术治疗腹股沟斜疝合并前列腺良性增生[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 441-444.
阅读次数
全文


摘要