高级检索

    新型螺旋热膨胀前列腺支架与经尿道等离子前列腺电切术治疗高龄前列腺增生患者的疗效比较

    Comparison of the effect between new spiral thermo-expandable prostate stent and transurethral plasma kinetic resection of prostate for elderly patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia

    • 摘要: 目的 探讨新型螺旋热膨胀前列腺支架置入术与经尿道等离子前列腺电切术治疗高龄前列腺增生患者的疗效情况。方法 回顾性分析2017年5月—2018年10月徐州医科大学附属医院泌尿外科25例高龄(年龄>75岁)前列腺增生患者的临床资料和治疗效果,根据手术方式将其分为支架组10例,经尿道等离子前列腺电切术(PKRP)组15例。比较2组患者手术时间及住院时间、术前及术后3、12个月国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、最大尿流率(MFR)、残余尿量(RUV)、疼痛评分(VAS)、生活质量评分(QOL),并随访术后不良反应。结果 所有患者术后均能恢复自主排尿,与PKRP组比较支架组手术时间〔(30.3±6.9)min vs(92.0±27.3)min〕及住院时间〔(3.2±1.1)d vs(7.3±1.9)d〕均明显缩短且疼痛评分更低〔(2.8±0.6)分 vs(4.2±1.2)分〕;术后3个月复查支架组在MFR改善更明显〔(13.8±2.0)ml·s-1 vs (15.2±1.6)ml·s-1〕,IPSS、RUV、QOL改善相似,差异无统计学意义,而在术后1年随访时支架组MFR、RUV、IPSS改善更明显(P<0.05)。2组患者术后未发生尿失禁、前列腺电切综合征、支架移位等严重并发症。结论 2种术式近期疗效相似,而前列腺支架组术后1年时疗效更好,可作为不能耐受全身麻醉的高龄良性前列腺增生患者的首选治疗方法。

       

      Abstract: Objective To explore the efficacy of transurethral spiral thermo-expandable prostatic stent implantation and transurethral partial prostate resection for elderly patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods A total of 25 elderly (more than 75 years old) patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia were enrolled, who were admitted into Department of Urology, the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University from May 2017 to October 2018. Their clinical data and therapeutic effects were retrospectively analyzed. According to their surgical methods, they were divided into two groups (n=15): a prostate stent group and aPKRP group. Both groups were compared for the length of operation and hospitalization stay, as well as international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the max flow rate (MFR), residual urine volume (RUV), the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and quality of life (QOL) before surgery and 3 and 12 months after surgery. Postoperative adverse reactions were collected during follow-up visits. Results After surgery, all the patients are able to urinate by themselves.Compared with the PKRP group, the stent group showed remarkably shortened length of operation(30.3±6.9) min vs(92.0±27.3)min and hospitalization stay(3.2 ±1.1) d vs (7.3 ±1.9) d, and reduced VAS scores (2.8 ±0.6) vs (4.2 ±1.2). After three months after operation, compared with the PKRP group, MFR was obviously improved in the stent group(13.8±2.0) ml·s-1vs (15.2±1.6) ml·s-1. There was no statistical difference in the changes of IPSS, RUV and QOL between the two groups. During follow-up visits one year after surgery, remarkable improvement was found in MFR, RUV and IPSS in the stent group (P<0.05). There were no serious complications such as prostate resection syndrome and stent displacement in the two groups. Conclusions The short-term efficacy of the two procedures is similar, and the stent is more effective at 1 year after surgery, and can be used as the first choice for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who cannot tolerate general anesthesia.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回