摘要
目的:比较经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)与TURP加经尿道膀胱颈切开(TUIBN)治疗小体积前列腺增生所致膀胱颈梗阻的疗效。方法:经尿道治疗小体积前列腺增生引起膀胱颈梗阻患者47 例,22 例行单纯TURP,25例行TURP加TUIBN,通过国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、最大尿流率(MFR) 及剩余尿量(PRV)三方面比较两组的疗效。结果:单纯TURP组的IPSS由术前(21.8±4.5)分降至术后(12.1±2.3)分,MFR由术前(8.2±3.3) ml/s升至术后(11.8±4.0) ml/s,PRV由术前(110.3±41.0) ml降至术后(25.3±13.0)ml;TURP加TUIBN组IPSS由术前(23.6±5.6)分降至术后(6.6±2.2)分,MFR由术前(8.7±3.1) ml/ s升至术后(20.7±6.7) ml/s,PRV由术前(98.3±38.0) ml降至术后(10.3±8.0) ml;两组术后IPSS和MFR、PRV比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),TURP加TUIBN疗效更佳。结论:TURP加TUIBN治疗小体积前列腺增生术后膀胱颈梗阻的疗效更为理想。
Objective:To evaluate TURP and TURP plus TUIBN( transurethral incision of bladder neck) for bladder neck obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia(BPH) of small volume.Methods:47 patients were transurethrally treated.22 of them were treated with TURP and the other 25 with TURP plus TUIBN. The efficacy of TURP and TURP plus TUIBN was comparatively evaluated by IPSS , the maximum flow rate (MFR) and post void residual urine volume(PVR).Results:The mean score of IPSS of the patients treated with TURP decreased from 21.8± 4.5(pre-operative) to 12.1± 2.3 (post-operative),MFR increased from 8.2± 3.3 ml/ s(pre-operative) to 11.8± 4.0 ml/s(post-operative), PRV decreased from 110.3± 41.0 ml(pre-operative) to 25.3± 13.0 ml(post-operative);the mean score of IPSS of the patients treated with TURP plus TUIBN decreased from 23.6± 5.6(pre-operative) to 6.6± 2.2(post-operative) MFR increased from 8.7± 3.1 ml/s(pre-operative) to 20.7± 6.7 ml/s(post-operative), PRV decreased from 98.3± 38.0 ml(pre-operative) to 10.3± 8.0 ml (post-operative).The postoperative improvement has been much better in the patients treated with TURP plus TUIBN than others treated with TURP as assessed by IPSS,MFR and PRV(P< 0 .01). Conclusions:TURP plus TUIBN proves to be better treatment for bladder neck obstruction caused by BPH of small volume.
出处
《临床泌尿外科杂志》
2005年第5期267-268,共2页
Journal of Clinical Urology
关键词
前列腺增生
经尿道前列腺电切术
经尿道膀胱颈切开术
Prostatic hyperplasia
Transurethral resection of prostate
Transurethral incision of bladder neck
