Shovel-shaped electrode transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation versus plasmakinetic resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
- Author:
Lin ZHAO
1
;
Yong-Hong MA
2
;
Qi CHEN
1
;
Yan-Bo CHEN
1
;
Meng GU
1
;
Jing-Feng GAO
2
;
Guang-Tao ZHANG
2
;
Jiang-Ning MOU
2
;
Zhen-Hu BAO
2
;
Zhong WANG
1
Author Information
1. Departments of Urology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200011, China.
2. Departments of Urology, Shizuishan Second People's Hospital, Shizuishan, Ningxia 753000, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
clinical effectiveness;
shovel-shaped electrode;
transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate;
transurethral plasmakinetic resection of the prostate;
benign prostatic hyperplasia
- MeSH:
China;
Electrodes;
adverse effects;
Equipment Design;
Humans;
Male;
Prostatic Hyperplasia;
surgery;
Quality of Life;
Retrospective Studies;
Transurethral Resection of Prostate;
instrumentation;
methods;
Treatment Outcome
- From:National Journal of Andrology
2018;24(2):133-137
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the safety and effectiveness of shovel-shaped electrode transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) with those of plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data about 78 BPH patients received in Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital from June 2016 to January 2017, 39 treated by shovel-shaped electrode PKEP and the other 39 by PKRP. We observed the patients for 6 months postoperatively and compared the effects and safety of the two surgical strategies.
RESULTS:No statistically significant difference was observed between the PKEP and PKRP groups in the operation time (［69.3 ± 8.8］ vs ［72.2 ± 7.9］ min, P = 0.126), but the former, as compared with the latter, showed a markedly less postoperative loss of hemoglobin (［3.9 ± 2.8］ vs ［13.9 ± 5.2］ g/L, P <0.001) and shorter bladder irrigation time (［12.5 ± 1.2］ vs ［43.4 ± 2.8］ h, P <0.001), catheterization time (［64.0 ± 4.5］ vs ［84.8 ± 3.0］ h, P <0.001) and hospital stay (［3.1 ± 0.3］ vs ［5.5 ± 0.4］ d, P <0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the PKEP and PKRP groups in the postoperative maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) (［21.62 ± 1.07］ vs ［21.03 ± 0.96］ ml/s, P = 0.12), International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) (5.85 ± 0.90 vs 6.03 ± 0.81, P = 0.279), quality of life score (QoL) (2.0 ± 0.73 vs 2.28 ± 0.72, P = 0.09), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) (［19.59 ± 6.01］ vs ［20.21 ± 5.16］ ml, P = 0.629), or the incidence rates of urinary incontinence (2.56% ［1/39］ vs 7.69% ［3/39］, P >0.05) and other postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS:Both PKEP and PKRP are effective methods for the treatment of BPH, but PKEP is worthier of clinical recommendation for a better safety profile, more thorough removal of the prostate tissue, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and better improved quality of life of the patient.
