曹陽

[關鍵詞] 良性前列腺增生;尿流動力學;TURP;TUPKP

[中圖分類號] R722.1? ? ? ? ? [文獻標識碼] A? ? ? ? ? [文章編號] 1673-9701（2021）21-0011-03

The effect of urethral resection of the prostate and bipolar transurethral plasma kinetic prostatectomy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

CAO Yang

Department of Urology， the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanhua University， Hengyang? ?421001， China

[Abstract] Objective To analyze the application value of transurethral resection of the prostate （TURP） and bipolar transurethral plasma kinetic prostatectomy （TUPKP） in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. Methods A total of 68 patients with BPH admitted from April 2018 to April 2020 of our hospital were retrospectively selected. They were divided into the control group （TURP treatment，34 cases） and the observation group （TUPKP treatment， 34 cases） according to the different treatment plans. The patients′ surgical indexes， urodynamic indexes，international prostate symptoms （IPSS） score， and complications between the two groups were compared. Results The operation time （36.45±4.24） min and the urinary catheter indwelling time （1.95±0.27）d of the observation group were significantly shorter than the operation time [（45.62±5.73）min] and the urinary catheter indwelling time [（2.34±0.42）d] of the control group. The intraoperative blood loss of the observation group was （14.54±1.93）mL， which was less than the intraoperative blood loss of the control group [（20.31±5.26）mL]. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant（P<0.05）. There was no statistically significant difference in the urodynamic indexes between the two groups after treatment（P>0.05）. The IPSS score of the observation group after treatment was （8.56±1.95）points， which was significantly lower than that of the control group IPSS score [（10.25±2.74）points]， and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant （P<0.05）. In addition， the complication rate of the observation group was 5.88%， which was significantly lower than the complication rate of the control group （26.47%）. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant （P<0.05）. Conclusion Both TURP and TUPKP have a significant improvement effect on the urodynamics of BPH patients， and the TUPKP has more ideal application safety.

[Key words] Benign prostatic hyperplasia; Urodynamics; TURP; TUPKP