A comparative study on the efficacy and safety of modified plasma kinetic resection of the prostate and transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

韩冬,林钢,郝志军,高勇,张崔建
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn431460-20200828-00130
2022-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To explore the efficacy and safety of modified plasma kinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) and transurethral resection of the prostate(TURP)in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).Methods:Retrospective analysis of clinical data of a total of 104 BPH patients who were treated in Peking university first hospital from August 2018 to August 2020 were performed and divided into TURP group and modified PKRP group, with 52 cases in each group. BPH patients in TURP group were treated by TURP, and BPH patients in modified PKRP group were treated by modified PKRP. The operation time, weight of excised tissue, bleeding volume and extubation time of the two groups were compared; the erectile confidence, insertion ability and erectile maintenance ability of the two groups were compared with the international erectile function index score(IIEF-5); the international score of prostate symptoms (IPSS) and quality of life (QOL) scores of the two groups were compared; the erectile dysfunction, semen volume reduction, retrograde ejaculation and complications of the two groups were observed.Results:Compared with TURP group, the operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage and extubation time of modified PKRP group were lower, the weight of excised tissue was higher than that of TURP group (all P<0.05); the erectile confidence, insertion ability and erectile maintenance ability of modified PKRP group were higher than that of TURP group (all P<0.05); the IPSS and QOL scores of modified PKRP group were lower than that of TURP group (all P<0.05); the erectile function of modified PKRP group was better than that of TURP group( P=0.006, 0.046, 0.025); the total incidence of complications in the modified PKRP group was lower than that in the TURP group ( P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared with TURP, modified PKRP has good therapeutic effect, high safety, lower IPSS and QOL scores, less impact on patients' injury symptoms, and fewer complications, which is worthy of clinical promotion.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?