[Thulium laser enucleation versus plasma kinetic resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia].

Autor:	Zhang WD; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing 100016, China., Wang WJ; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing 100016, China., Song ZQ; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing 100016, China., Ma Z; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing 100016, China., Zhang JW; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing 100016, China., Wang HH; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing 100016, China., Wu JC; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Tsinghua University, Beijing 100016, China.
Jazyk:	čínština
Zdroj:	Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology [Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue] 2024 Jun; Vol. 30 (6), pp. 514-518.
Abstrakt:	Objective: To compare thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) with plasma kinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in the treatment of BPH. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 160 cases of BPH treated by ThuLEP (the observation group, n = 80) or PKRP (the control group, n = 80) in our hospital from January 2021 to December 2023. We recorded the operation time, bladder irrigation time, catheter retention time, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, and pre- and postoperative maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), residual urine volume (PVR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate volume, followed by comparison of the data obtained between the two groups of patients. Results: Compared with the controls, the patients of the observation group showed significantly shorter operation time (［67.25 ± 7.24］ vs ［60.10 ± 5.15］ min, P< 0.05), bladder irrigation time (［46.90 ± 10.77］ vs ［43.24 ± 6.65］ h, P< 0.05), catheterization time (［5.60 ± 1.31］ vs ［5.03 ± 1.24］ d, P< 0.05) and hospitalization time (［7.31 ± 2.00］ vs ［6.55 ± 1.67］ d, P< 0.05), higher Qmax (［18.50 ± 1.24］ vs ［20.68 ± 1.45］ ml/s, P< 0.05), lower PVR (［12.10 ± 3.53］ vs ［10.82 ± 3.10］ ml, P< 0.05), PSA (［4.60 ± 0.78］ vs ［3.38 ± 0.40］ μg/L, P< 0.05) and prostate volume (［25.35 ± 6.46］ vs ［20.12 ± 5.13］ ml, P< 0.05) at 3 months after surgery, but no statistically significant difference in the total incidence of postoperative complications (7.50% ［6/80］ vs 5.00% ［4/80］, P > 0.05). Conclusion: ThuLEP, with its advantages of notable effect, short operation and hospitalization time, significant improvement of urinary flow dynamics and prostate function, deserves clinical promotion for the treatment of BPH.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu