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) ›› 2020, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (06) : 448 -451. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2020.06.011

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

经尿道前列腺等离子与钬激光剜除术治疗前列腺增生的比较
蔡平昌1, 柏明军2, 高虹1, 何江波1, 陈定华1, 邹红东1, 李欣1, 胡成3, 李腾成3,()   
  1. 1. 550002 贵阳市第四人民医院泌尿外科
    2. 510630 广州,中山大学附属第三医院介入血管科
    3. 510630 广州,中山大学附属第三医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2019-10-12 出版日期:2020-12-01
  • 通信作者: 李腾成
  • 基金资助:
    2019年中山大学校级本科教学质量工程与教学改革项目(82000-31911131)

Comparison of transurethral enucleation of the prostate and transurethral prostate high power holmium laser deburring for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Pingchang Cai1, Mingjun Bai2, Hong Gao1, Jiangbo He1, Dinghua Chen1, Hongdong Zou1, Xin Li1, Cheng Hu3, Tengcheng Li3,()   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Fourth People's Hospital of Guiyang, 550002 Guizhou, China
    2. Department of Vascular Surgery, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 510630 Guangzhou, China
    3. Department of Urology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 510630 Guangzhou, China
  • Received:2019-10-12 Published:2020-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Tengcheng Li
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Li Tengcheng, Email:
引用本文:

蔡平昌, 柏明军, 高虹, 何江波, 陈定华, 邹红东, 李欣, 胡成, 李腾成. 经尿道前列腺等离子与钬激光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), 2020, 14(06): 448-451.

Pingchang Cai, Mingjun Bai, Hong Gao, Jiangbo He, Dinghua Chen, Hongdong Zou, Xin Li, Cheng Hu, Tengcheng Li. Comparison of transurethral enucleation of the prostate and transurethral prostate high power holmium laser deburring for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(06): 448-451.

目的

探讨基层医院开展经尿道前列腺等离子剜除术(TUEP)和经尿道前列腺大功率钬激光剜除术(HoLEP)治疗老年男性前列腺增生患者的安全性和有效性。

方法

回顾性分析贵阳市第四人民医院250例前列腺增生患者的住院病例资料,其中等离子组156例,钬激光组94例。统计比较两组患者的临床资料。

结果

所有患者手术均取得成功,无中转开放手术病例,术后随访至少12个月。等离子组与钬激光组的基线资料比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。钬激光组患者术后血红蛋白变化[(1.2±0.5)g/L vs (2.3±0.8)g/L]和术后血生化血钠降低指数[(1.9±0.5)mmol/Lvs(3.1±1.5)mmol/L]变化较等离子组患者小,术后置尿管时间[(3.4±0.8)d vs (5.3±1.4)d]和住院时间[(4.5±1.9)d vs (6.7±2.5)d]比等离子组患者短,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.001)。等离子组与钬激光组患者术后3个月IPSS、RUV、Qmax和QOL均较术前改善(P<0.05),随访期间无尿失禁发生,远期并发症差异无统计学意义(6/156 vs 4/94,P>0.05)。

结论

TUEP与HoLEP治疗前列腺增生均安全、有效,远期疗效需进一步研究证实。

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of transurethral enucleation of the prostate (TUEP) and transurethral prostate high power holmium laser deburring (HoLEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in the primary hospital.

Methods

250 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia were retrospectively included in the study, including 156 cases in the TUEP group and 94 cases in the HoLEP group. The clinical data were compared between the two groups.

Results

All operations were successful, no case was transfered to open surgery, and followed up at least 12 monthes. There was no significant difference in the baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05). The hemoglobin changes [(1.2±0.5)g/L vs (2.3±0.8)g/L], postoperative blood biochemical sodium reduction index [(1.9±0.5)mmol/L vs (3.1±1.5)mmol/L], and the postoperative catheter indwelling time [(3.4±0.8)days vs (5.3±1.4)days], hospitalization time [(4.5±1.9)days vs (6.7±2.5)days] in the HoLEP group were smaller or shorter than those in the TUEP group, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.001). The IPSS, RUV, Qmax and QOL of the patients in both groups were improved compared with those before operation (P<0.05). There was no urinary incontinence during the follow-up period and long-term complications were not different between the two groups (6/156 vs 4/94, P>0.05).

Conclusion

TUEP and HoLEP are both safe and effective for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia patients in the primary hospitals, and long-term effects need to be confirmed by further studies.

表1 钬激光组与等离子组前列腺增生患者围手术期资料的比较(±s
[1]
Thomas D, Zorn KC, Meskawi M, et al. The role of photovaporization of the prostate in small volume benign prostatic hyperplasia and review of the literature[J]. Asian J Urol, 2019, 6(4):353-358.
[2]
Xiao KW, Zhou L, He Q, et al. Enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia thulium laser versus holmium laser: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Lasers Med Sci, 2019, 185(5): 1-12.
[3]
Rivera ME, Lingeman JE, Heinsimer K, et al. A survey of morcellator preference and cost comparison of the lumenis versacut and wolf piranha morcellators[J]. J Urol, 2018, 111(4): 54-58.
[4]
江东根, 庞俊, 肖楚天, 等.经尿道1 470 nm激光与等离子前列腺剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生症的前瞻性随机对照研究[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志, 2017, 32 (12): 908-911.
[5]
王金亮, 徐丁, 钱苏波,等. 无创检测方法预测中国良性前列腺增生患者急性尿潴留风险[J]. 中国男科学杂志, 2018, 32(6): 14-18.
[6]
Peter Gilling. TURP remains a safe and effective alternative for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) surgery[J]. BJU Int, 2014,113(1): 5-6.
[7]
梅桦, 陈凌武, 高新. 泌尿外科手术学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社. 2008: 699-705.
[8]
Omar MI, Lam TB, Alexander CE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of bipolar compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)[J]. BJU Int, 2014, 113(1): 24-35.
[9]
张浩, 司徒杰, 李名钊, 等. 侧入路四步法经尿道前列腺等离子解剖性剜除术治疗大体积前列腺增生[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 10(1): 5-8.
[10]
田进军, 李军, 杨震宇, 等. 钬激光前列腺剜除术与传统TURP疗效及并发症比较[J]. 医学信息, 2019, 32(18): 75-77.
[11]
李海洋, 郭柏鸿, 李恒平, 等. 科医人双波长激光(Ho-Nd:YAG)前列腺剜除治疗BPH的有效性及安全性[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2019, 39(18): 4501-4504.
[12]
Xue BX, Zang YC, Zhang YY, et a1. Green Light HPS 120-W laser vaporization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A prospective randomized trial[J]. J X-Ray Sci Technol, 2013, 21(2): 125-132
[13]
李四化, 刘聪, 林悦悦. 经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术与电切术治疗前列腺增生的疗效分析[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(4): 264-267.
[14]
郭俊生, 夏海波, 包国昌, 等. 绿激光与2 μm激光经尿道前列腺切除术临床分析[J]. 中国现代药物应用. 2014, 8(5): 21-22.
[15]
Shigemura K, Yamamichi F, Kitagawa K, et al. Does surgeon experience affect operative time, adverse events and continence outcomes in holmium laser enucleation of the prostate? A review of more than 1,000 cases[J]. J Urol, 2017, 198(3): 663-670.
[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.
[4] 李晓山, 刘巍, 魏世平. 双J管-Folys导尿管捆绑复合体在输尿管镜钬激光碎石术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 154-156.
[5] 金敬苗, 韦巍, 钟羽翔, 麦源, 黄剑华, 赵朋朋, 林富祥, 李旷怡, 徐战平. 侧卧位微创经皮肾镜联合Y形负压吸引鞘治疗中老年铸型结石的研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 144-148.
[6] 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.
[7] 于忠英, 李金雨, 赵力, 朱显钟, 许伟杰, 张汉荣, 罗辉, 庄园丽. 侧卧位"Φ"字切除法在经皮肾镜等离子肾囊肿去顶术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 63-66.
[8] 袁清. 经尿道前列腺钬激光剜除术(整叶法)[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 0-.
[9] 荆翌峰. 经尿道铥激光前列腺剜除术[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 0-.
[10] 廖云峰. 经尿道等离子解剖性前列腺剜除术(整叶法)[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 0-.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 臧宇, 姚胜, 戎世捧, 田智超. 低温等离子射频清创联合负压封闭引流对腹壁术后切口感染的临床效果[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 37-42.
[14] 李德新, 牟成金, 李飞, 赵晓晨, 廖东旭, 汪旭, 董科. 钬激光在炎性胆管柱状狭窄的初步探讨[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(12): 1207-1210.
[15] 程付伟, 黄海平, 牛聿玉, 李佳宸, 孙朋. 显微支撑喉镜低温等离子射频消融术对早期声门型喉癌的中长期随访分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(10): 995-999.
阅读次数
全文


摘要