目的 观察比较经尿道前列腺等离子电切术(PKRP)和经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的疗效。方法 对BPH患者分别施行相应手术治疗,其中TURP组17例、PKRP组18例,观察两组术中出血量、术后尿管留置时间、膀胱冲洗时间、造瘘管留置时间、术后住院时间以及最大尿流率(Q_max)、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)等指标。结果 PKRP组术中出血量明显少于TURP组患者(P<0.01),TURP组6例患者术后输血(200～600) mL,PKRP组无术后输血病例;TURP组1例患者81岁,因术后出血过多,最后诱发心力衰竭死亡。PKRP组有4例患者未行膀胱造瘘;TURP组术后2例出现水中毒。两组术后尿管留置时间、膀胱冲洗时间、造瘘管留置时间、术后住院时间均无明显差异(P>0.05);术后3个月两组Q_max、IPS无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论 PKRP治疗BPH较传统TURP疗效更佳,并发症较少,可明显促进患者恢复。

Objective To observe and compare the clinical effects of plasmakinetic resection of prostate (PKRP) and transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).Methods BPH Patients in TURP group (n=17) and PKRP group (n=18) were treated with corresponding operations.The intraoperative blood loss, indwelling time of urinary catheters, irrigation time of bladder, indwelling time of fistula tubes, postoperative hospital stay, maximum urinary flow rate (Q_max), and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) were observed in the two groups.Results The intraoperative blood loss in the PKRP group was significantly less than that in the TURP group (P<0.01).Six cases received blood transfusion (200-600 mL) in the TURP group and none in the PKRP group.One patient aged 81 years in the TURP group died of heart failure due to excessive postoperative bleeding in the TURP group.Four patients didn’t have cystostomy in the PKRP group.Two patients in the TURP group had water poisoning after operation.There were no significant differences in indwelling time of urinary catheters, irrigation time of bladder, indwelling time of fistula tubes, and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (P>0.05).No significant differences in Q_max and IPS were shown between the two groups three months after operation.Conclusion PKRP is more effective than traditional TURP in the treatment of BPH with fewer complications and significantly accelerated recovery of patients.