Abstract: 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.

Key words: Plasmakinetic resection of prostate, Transurethral resection of prostate, Benign prostate hyperplasia