Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethra...Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate (TUPKP) is one of the foremost surgical procedures for the treatment of BPH. It has become well established in clinical practice with good efficacy and safety. In 2018, we issued the guideline “2018 Standard Edition”. However much new direct evidence has now emerged and this may change some of previous recommendations. The time is ripe to develop new evidence-based guidelines, so we formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members posed 31 questions relevant to the management of TUPKP for BPH covering the following areas: questions relevant to the perioperative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of TUPKP in the treatment of BPH, postoperative complications and the level of surgeons’ surgical skill. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of TUPKP for BPH, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the grade criteria by the European Association of Urology. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of an ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 36 statements. Among them, 23 carried strong recommendations, and 13 carried weak recommendations for the stated procedure. They covered questions relevant to the aforementioned three areas. The preoperative period for TUPKP in the treatment of BPH included indications and contraindications for TUPKP, precautions for preoperative preparation in patients with renal impairment and urinary tract infection due to urinary retention, and preoperative prophylactic use of antibiotics. Questions relevant to the intraoperative period incorporated surgical operation techniques and prevention and management of bladder explosion. The application to different populations incorporating the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in the treatment of normal volume (< 80 ml) and large-volume (≥ 80 ml) BPH compared with transurethral urethral resection prostate, transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate and open prostatectomy;the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in high-risk populations and among people taking anticoagulant (antithrombotic) drugs. Questions relevant to the postoperative period incorporated the time and speed of flushing, the time indwelling catheters are needed, principles of postoperative therapeutic use of antibiotics, follow-up time and follow-up content. Questions related to complications incorporated types of complications and their incidence, postoperative leukocyturia, the treatment measures for the perforation and extravasation of the capsule, transurethral resection syndrome, postoperative bleeding, urinary catheter blockage, bladder spasm, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, rectal injury during surgery, postoperative erectile dysfunction and retrograde ejaculation. Final questions were related to surgeons’ skills when performing TUPKP for the treatment of BPH. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for patients having TUPKP for the treatment of BPH.展开更多
Objective:To investigate the causes of bladder explosion during transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate and to explore effective measures to reduce the risk of bladder explosion.Methods:The treatment process...Objective:To investigate the causes of bladder explosion during transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate and to explore effective measures to reduce the risk of bladder explosion.Methods:The treatment process of bladder rupture(2cases)and bladder muscle layer laceration(1case)during transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate were retrospectively analyzed.Results:Two cases with intra-peritoneal rupture were cured by open surgery,and 1case with bladder muscle layer laceration was cured by conservative treatment.The main cause of bladder explosion is that:the flammable gas produced during the resection of prostate tissue mixed with the gas from the outside into the bladder to a certain proportion,in the action of electric spark,causing gas explosion.Conclusions:Using dorsal elevated position,shortening operative time,and reducing gas entering the bladder are three key points to prevent bladder explosion.展开更多
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasmakinetic resection of the prostate （PKRP） versus transurethral resection of the prostate （TURP） for the treatment of patients with benign prostate hyperplasia （BPH）, a...To evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasmakinetic resection of the prostate （PKRP） versus transurethral resection of the prostate （TURP） for the treatment of patients with benign prostate hyperplasia （BPH）, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The pooled estimates of maximum flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score, operation time, catheterization time, irrigated volume, hospital stay, transurethral resection syndrome, transfusion, clot retention, urinary retention and urinary stricture were assessed. There was no notable difference in International Prostate Symptom Score between TURP and PKRP groups during the 1-month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months follow-up period, while the pooled Qmax at 1-month favored PKRP group. PKRP group was related to a lower risk rate of transurethral resection syndrome, transfusion and clot retention, and the catheterization time and operation time were also shorter than that of TURP. The irrigated volume, length of hospital stay, urinary retention and urinary stricture rate were similar between groups. In conclusion, our study suggests that the PKRP is a reliable minimal invasive technique and may anticipatoriiy prove to be an alternative electrosurgical procedure for the treatment of BPH.展开更多
In the present study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of immediate surgical bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of the prostate （PK-TURP） for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH） with ac...In the present study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of immediate surgical bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of the prostate （PK-TURP） for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH） with acute urinary retention （AUR）. We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data of BPH patients who received PK-TURP. A total of 1126 BPH patients were divided into AUR （n = 348） and non-AUR groups （n = 778）. After the urethral catheters were removed, the urine white blood cell （WBC） count in the AUR group significantly increased compared with the non-AUR group （P〈 0.01）. However, there was no significant difference in international prostate symptom score, painful urination, and maximal urinary flow rate. The duration of hospitalization of the AUR group was longer than that of the non-AUR group （P 〈 0.001）. A total of 87.1% （303/348） patients in the AUR group and 84.1% （654/778） patients in the non-AUR group completed all of the postoperative follow-up visits. The incidence of urinary tract infection in the AUR group within 3 months after surgery was significantly higher than that in the non-AUR group （P 〈 0.01）. The incidence of temporary urinary incontinence in the AUR group did not exhibit significant difference. During 3-12 months after surgery, there were no significant differences in major complications between the two groups. Multivariate regression analyses showed that age, postvoid residual, maximal urinary flow rate, diabetes, and hypertension, but not the presence of AUR, were independent predictors of IPSS post-PK-TURP. In conclusion, immediate PK-TURP surgery on patients accompanied by AUR was safe and effective.展开更多
目的探讨经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术(transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate,TUPKP)治疗高危良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者的临床疗效。方法采用前瞻性多中心研究设计。在全国20家医院泌尿外科按照纳入排除标准,入组行TUPKP...目的探讨经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术(transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate,TUPKP)治疗高危良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者的临床疗效。方法采用前瞻性多中心研究设计。在全国20家医院泌尿外科按照纳入排除标准,入组行TUPKP治疗的高危BPH患者,分析患者基线、围手术期及术后3个月随访的相关数据,评价疗效和安全性。结果2016年9月至2018年12月共入组229名高危BPH患者。与基线相比,术后3个月随访的国际前列腺症状评分改变量为-17.28[95%CI(-18.02,-16.54)]分、最大尿流率改变量为5.61[95%CI(0.68,10.54)]mL·s^(-1)、残余尿量改变量为-84.50[95%CI(-96.49,-72.51)]mL、生活质量评分改变量为-3.24[95%CI(-3.42,-3.06)]分,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术中及术后并发症的发生率低,未发生与手术相关的不良事件。结论TUPKP可以用于治疗高危BPH患者,建议由技术熟练的术者实施手术。展开更多
目的 :探讨经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of prostate,TURP)与经尿道双极等离子电切术(bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate,PKRP)治疗良性前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)疗效、并发症及安...目的 :探讨经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of prostate,TURP)与经尿道双极等离子电切术(bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate,PKRP)治疗良性前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)疗效、并发症及安全性差异。方法:收集2009年1月至2011年12月接受TURP和PKRP的BPH患者560例,其中TURP组210例,PKRP组350例,比较2组基线资料、疗效、并发症及安全性差异。结果:PKRP组与PKRP组比较,2组基线资料差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);PKRP组手术时间(t=8.046,P=0.000)、术中出血量(t=16.653,P=0.000)、留置尿管时间(t=7.701,P=0.000)均少于TURP组;TURP组术后较术前:国际前列腺症状评分(international prostate symptom score,IPSS)(t=62.092,P=0.000)、生活质量指数(quality of life,QOL)(t=72.355,P=0.000)、最大尿流率(maximum flow rate,Qmax)(t=73.993,P=0.000)均有改善,PKRP组术后较术前:IPSS(t=77.777,P=0.000)、QOL(t=82.038,P=0.000)、Qmax(t=89.860,P=0.000),均有明显改善,但2组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);TURP组前列腺电切综合征、血流动力学波动、术中大出血等13项发生率明显高于PKRP组(P<0.05)。结论:TURP和PKRP均为BPH的有效治疗手段。PKRP比较TURP,具有手术时间短、出血量少、并发症少、安全性更高等优点,但其长期疗效需进一步随访观察。展开更多
目的探讨分叶分隔法经尿道等离子双极电切术（plasmakinetic resection of the prostate,PKRP）治疗大体积前列腺增生（体积〉60 ml）的价值。方法 2008年3月~2013年6月我科对218例大体积前列腺增生采用分叶分隔法PKRP,即先切除5~7点位...目的探讨分叶分隔法经尿道等离子双极电切术（plasmakinetic resection of the prostate,PKRP）治疗大体积前列腺增生（体积〉60 ml）的价值。方法 2008年3月~2013年6月我科对218例大体积前列腺增生采用分叶分隔法PKRP,即先切除5~7点位前列腺中叶、11~1点位前列腺顶叶,建立标记沟。沿顶叶标记沟分别向前列腺侧叶的根部近外科包膜处进行切除至中叶标记沟处,使侧叶前列腺仅余少量带蒂组织与基底相连,再大块切除无血管供应的残留侧叶,最后修整精阜周围腺体。结果分叶分隔法行前列腺切除术均顺利完成,切除前列腺重量（52.4±13.2）g,手术时间（65.0±15.5）min,出血量（103.3±37.7）ml。术后1个月国际前列腺症状评分（14.2±3.4）分,比术前（28.7±3.0）分明显降低（t=46.216,P=0.000）;术后生活质量评分（2.8±0.7）分,比术前（5.3±0.5）分明显降低（t=41.323,P=0.000）;术后最大尿流率（19.3±6.4）ml/s,较术前（6.4±2.3）ml/s明显改善（t=-50.112,P=0.000）。结论采用分叶分隔法PKRP治疗大体积前列腺增生安全,疗效满意,易于掌握。展开更多
基金the National Key Research and Development Plan of China(Technology helps Economy 20202016YFC0106300)+1 种基金the National Natural Science Foundation of China(82174230)Major Program Fund of Technical Innovation Project of Department of Science and Technology of Hubei Province(2016ACAl52).
文摘Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate (TUPKP) is one of the foremost surgical procedures for the treatment of BPH. It has become well established in clinical practice with good efficacy and safety. In 2018, we issued the guideline “2018 Standard Edition”. However much new direct evidence has now emerged and this may change some of previous recommendations. The time is ripe to develop new evidence-based guidelines, so we formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members posed 31 questions relevant to the management of TUPKP for BPH covering the following areas: questions relevant to the perioperative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of TUPKP in the treatment of BPH, postoperative complications and the level of surgeons’ surgical skill. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of TUPKP for BPH, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the grade criteria by the European Association of Urology. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of an ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 36 statements. Among them, 23 carried strong recommendations, and 13 carried weak recommendations for the stated procedure. They covered questions relevant to the aforementioned three areas. The preoperative period for TUPKP in the treatment of BPH included indications and contraindications for TUPKP, precautions for preoperative preparation in patients with renal impairment and urinary tract infection due to urinary retention, and preoperative prophylactic use of antibiotics. Questions relevant to the intraoperative period incorporated surgical operation techniques and prevention and management of bladder explosion. The application to different populations incorporating the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in the treatment of normal volume (< 80 ml) and large-volume (≥ 80 ml) BPH compared with transurethral urethral resection prostate, transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate and open prostatectomy;the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in high-risk populations and among people taking anticoagulant (antithrombotic) drugs. Questions relevant to the postoperative period incorporated the time and speed of flushing, the time indwelling catheters are needed, principles of postoperative therapeutic use of antibiotics, follow-up time and follow-up content. Questions related to complications incorporated types of complications and their incidence, postoperative leukocyturia, the treatment measures for the perforation and extravasation of the capsule, transurethral resection syndrome, postoperative bleeding, urinary catheter blockage, bladder spasm, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, rectal injury during surgery, postoperative erectile dysfunction and retrograde ejaculation. Final questions were related to surgeons’ skills when performing TUPKP for the treatment of BPH. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for patients having TUPKP for the treatment of BPH.
基金Shanghai medical specialty construction plan(No.ZK2019C07)。
文摘Objective:To investigate the causes of bladder explosion during transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate and to explore effective measures to reduce the risk of bladder explosion.Methods:The treatment process of bladder rupture(2cases)and bladder muscle layer laceration(1case)during transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate were retrospectively analyzed.Results:Two cases with intra-peritoneal rupture were cured by open surgery,and 1case with bladder muscle layer laceration was cured by conservative treatment.The main cause of bladder explosion is that:the flammable gas produced during the resection of prostate tissue mixed with the gas from the outside into the bladder to a certain proportion,in the action of electric spark,causing gas explosion.Conclusions:Using dorsal elevated position,shortening operative time,and reducing gas entering the bladder are three key points to prevent bladder explosion.
文摘To evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasmakinetic resection of the prostate （PKRP） versus transurethral resection of the prostate （TURP） for the treatment of patients with benign prostate hyperplasia （BPH）, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The pooled estimates of maximum flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score, operation time, catheterization time, irrigated volume, hospital stay, transurethral resection syndrome, transfusion, clot retention, urinary retention and urinary stricture were assessed. There was no notable difference in International Prostate Symptom Score between TURP and PKRP groups during the 1-month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months follow-up period, while the pooled Qmax at 1-month favored PKRP group. PKRP group was related to a lower risk rate of transurethral resection syndrome, transfusion and clot retention, and the catheterization time and operation time were also shorter than that of TURP. The irrigated volume, length of hospital stay, urinary retention and urinary stricture rate were similar between groups. In conclusion, our study suggests that the PKRP is a reliable minimal invasive technique and may anticipatoriiy prove to be an alternative electrosurgical procedure for the treatment of BPH.
文摘In the present study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of immediate surgical bipolar plasmakinetic transurethral resection of the prostate （PK-TURP） for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH） with acute urinary retention （AUR）. We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data of BPH patients who received PK-TURP. A total of 1126 BPH patients were divided into AUR （n = 348） and non-AUR groups （n = 778）. After the urethral catheters were removed, the urine white blood cell （WBC） count in the AUR group significantly increased compared with the non-AUR group （P〈 0.01）. However, there was no significant difference in international prostate symptom score, painful urination, and maximal urinary flow rate. The duration of hospitalization of the AUR group was longer than that of the non-AUR group （P 〈 0.001）. A total of 87.1% （303/348） patients in the AUR group and 84.1% （654/778） patients in the non-AUR group completed all of the postoperative follow-up visits. The incidence of urinary tract infection in the AUR group within 3 months after surgery was significantly higher than that in the non-AUR group （P 〈 0.01）. The incidence of temporary urinary incontinence in the AUR group did not exhibit significant difference. During 3-12 months after surgery, there were no significant differences in major complications between the two groups. Multivariate regression analyses showed that age, postvoid residual, maximal urinary flow rate, diabetes, and hypertension, but not the presence of AUR, were independent predictors of IPSS post-PK-TURP. In conclusion, immediate PK-TURP surgery on patients accompanied by AUR was safe and effective.
文摘目的探讨经尿道前列腺等离子双极电切术(transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate,TUPKP)治疗高危良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者的临床疗效。方法采用前瞻性多中心研究设计。在全国20家医院泌尿外科按照纳入排除标准,入组行TUPKP治疗的高危BPH患者,分析患者基线、围手术期及术后3个月随访的相关数据,评价疗效和安全性。结果2016年9月至2018年12月共入组229名高危BPH患者。与基线相比,术后3个月随访的国际前列腺症状评分改变量为-17.28[95%CI(-18.02,-16.54)]分、最大尿流率改变量为5.61[95%CI(0.68,10.54)]mL·s^(-1)、残余尿量改变量为-84.50[95%CI(-96.49,-72.51)]mL、生活质量评分改变量为-3.24[95%CI(-3.42,-3.06)]分,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术中及术后并发症的发生率低,未发生与手术相关的不良事件。结论TUPKP可以用于治疗高危BPH患者,建议由技术熟练的术者实施手术。
文摘目的 :探讨经尿道前列腺电切术(transurethral resection of prostate,TURP)与经尿道双极等离子电切术(bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate,PKRP)治疗良性前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyperplasia,BPH)疗效、并发症及安全性差异。方法:收集2009年1月至2011年12月接受TURP和PKRP的BPH患者560例,其中TURP组210例,PKRP组350例,比较2组基线资料、疗效、并发症及安全性差异。结果:PKRP组与PKRP组比较,2组基线资料差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);PKRP组手术时间(t=8.046,P=0.000)、术中出血量(t=16.653,P=0.000)、留置尿管时间(t=7.701,P=0.000)均少于TURP组;TURP组术后较术前:国际前列腺症状评分(international prostate symptom score,IPSS)(t=62.092,P=0.000)、生活质量指数(quality of life,QOL)(t=72.355,P=0.000)、最大尿流率(maximum flow rate,Qmax)(t=73.993,P=0.000)均有改善,PKRP组术后较术前:IPSS(t=77.777,P=0.000)、QOL(t=82.038,P=0.000)、Qmax(t=89.860,P=0.000),均有明显改善,但2组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);TURP组前列腺电切综合征、血流动力学波动、术中大出血等13项发生率明显高于PKRP组(P<0.05)。结论:TURP和PKRP均为BPH的有效治疗手段。PKRP比较TURP,具有手术时间短、出血量少、并发症少、安全性更高等优点,但其长期疗效需进一步随访观察。
文摘目的：探讨和总结腔内治疗技术在高龄和高危良性前列腺增生（BPH）患者中应用的安全性、有效性和治疗经验。方法：采用腔内治疗技术,包括经尿道等离子体前列腺电切术（transurethral plasmakinetic resectionof prostate,PKRP）和经尿道前列腺电切术（transurethral resection of the prostate,TURP）,治疗高危（包括合并肾积水、肾功能不全、心功能不全、脑梗塞、慢性呼吸功能障碍、中重度贫血、糖尿病、膀胱肿瘤等疾病或腺体〉80 g）、高龄（年龄〉70岁）BPH患者283例,其中TURP组112例,PKRP组171组。结果：所有患者术后随访1~30个月。TURP组的国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOL）和残余尿量（RUV）由术前的（27.5±2.8）分、（5.5±1.0）分和（75.0±20.0）ml下降至术后的（5.8±1.2）分、（1.0±0.5）分和（8.0±3.0）ml,而最大尿流率（Qmax）由术前的（6.5±2.0）ml/s上升至术后的（18.5±1.5）ml/s（P均〈0.05）;PKRP组的IPSS、QOL和RUV由术前的（28.2±2.2）分、（5.5±1.0）分和（80.0±20.0）ml下降至术后的（5.4±1.6）分、（1.0±0.5）分和（7.0±3.0）ml,而Qmax由术前的（6.8±2.1）ml/s上升至术后的（20.0±1.5）ml/s（P均〈0.05）。两组的治疗效果之间的差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,而PKRP组术后并发症发生率较TURP组少（P〈0.05）。结论：年龄在70岁以上伴有心肺、脑肾等重要脏器合并症的高龄及高危BPH患者,经腔内技术治疗,特别是以PKRP治疗,在全面的围手术期准备护理、熟练的手术操作、有效控制手术时间及术后密切监护、加强护理的情况下,具有出血少、安全性高、并发症少、疗效确切等优点。
文摘目的探讨分叶分隔法经尿道等离子双极电切术（plasmakinetic resection of the prostate,PKRP）治疗大体积前列腺增生（体积〉60 ml）的价值。方法 2008年3月~2013年6月我科对218例大体积前列腺增生采用分叶分隔法PKRP,即先切除5~7点位前列腺中叶、11~1点位前列腺顶叶,建立标记沟。沿顶叶标记沟分别向前列腺侧叶的根部近外科包膜处进行切除至中叶标记沟处,使侧叶前列腺仅余少量带蒂组织与基底相连,再大块切除无血管供应的残留侧叶,最后修整精阜周围腺体。结果分叶分隔法行前列腺切除术均顺利完成,切除前列腺重量（52.4±13.2）g,手术时间（65.0±15.5）min,出血量（103.3±37.7）ml。术后1个月国际前列腺症状评分（14.2±3.4）分,比术前（28.7±3.0）分明显降低（t=46.216,P=0.000）;术后生活质量评分（2.8±0.7）分,比术前（5.3±0.5）分明显降低（t=41.323,P=0.000）;术后最大尿流率（19.3±6.4）ml/s,较术前（6.4±2.3）ml/s明显改善（t=-50.112,P=0.000）。结论采用分叶分隔法PKRP治疗大体积前列腺增生安全,疗效满意,易于掌握。
文摘目的比较经尿道前列腺等离子电切术与经尿道钬激光前列腺剜除术的疗效。方法将254例良性前列腺增生症患者按手术方式的不同,分为钬激光组(Ho LEP组,128例)和等离子电切组(PKRP组,126例)。比较两种术式的手术时间、手术出血量、膀胱冲洗时间、住院时间、并发症及近期疗效等指标。结果所有患者均顺利完成手术,无1例中转开放手术。Ho LEP组的手术时间明显长于PKRP组,但在术中出血量、术后持续膀胱冲洗时间、术后并发症发生率及住院时间方面,显著优于PKRP组。两组患者术后国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)、最大尿流率(Qmax)和残余尿量(PVR)均较术前明显改善,但两组上述指标间比较差异无显著性。结论 Ho LEP是一种疗效显著、安全性高的治疗前列腺增生的手术方式,有望挑战PKRP成为治疗BPH的新的金标准。
