Effects of transurethral resection of the prostate versus plasmakinetic resection of the prostate on erectile function in patients with giant benign prostatic hyperplasia
10.3760/cma.j.cn341190-20210109-00036
- VernacularTitle:经尿道前列腺电切术与等离子电切术治疗大体积良性前列腺增生对患者勃起功能的影响比较
- Author:
Yulong XU
1
;
Junhong ZHOU
;
Yubao ZHAO
;
Rui AN
Author Information
1. 太原钢铁（集团）有限公司总医院泌尿外科，太原 030003
- Keywords:
Prostatic hyperplasia;
Erectile dysfunction;
Transurethral resection of prostate;
Case-control studies;
Perioperative Period;
Urination;
Prostate-specific a
- From:
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
2022;29(8):1173-1178
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) versus plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP) in the treatment of patients with giant benign prostatic hyperplasia and their effects on erectile function. Methods:A total of 100 patients with GBPH who received treatment in the General Hospital of Taiyuan Iron and Steel (Group) Co., Ltd., from February 2017 to January 2020 were included in this study. They were randomly assigned to undergo either PKRP (PKRP group, n = 50) or TURP (TURP group, n = 50). Perioperative indicators were recorded. Urodynamic indicators and serum indicators pre- and post-operation were compared between the two groups. Erectile function and quality of life were compared between the two groups. The incidences of postoperative complications such as erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence and urethral stricture were calculated. Results:Operative time, hospital stay, catheter indwelling time, and intraoperative blood loss in the PKRP group were significantly shorter and less than those in the TURP group ( t = 14.35, 8.74, 6.20, 8.34, all P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in residual urine volume and maximum urine flow rate measured before surgery between the two groups ( t = 0.59, 0.73, both P > 0.05). After surgery, residual urine volume decreased and maximum urine flow rate increased in each group. Residual urine volume was significantly lower and maximum urine flow rate was significantly higher in the PKRP group compared with the TURP group ( t = 19.85, 11.67, both P < 0.001). Before surgery, there were no significant differences in serum prostate-specific antigen and free prostate-specific antigen between the two groups ( t = 0.43, 0.33, both P > 0.05). After surgery, both serum prostate-specific antigen and free prostate-specific antigen decreased in each group, and both serum prostate-specific antigen and free prostate-specific antigen were significantly lower in the PKRP group than those in the TURP group ( t = 16.01, 5.09, both P < 0.001). Before surgery, there were no significant differences in quality of life (QOL) score and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score between the two groups ( t = 0.62, 0.63, both P > 0.05). After surgery, IIEF score was increased and QOL score was decreased in each group. After surgery, IIEF score in the PKRP group was significantly higher than that in the TURP group [(25.06 ± 3.61) points vs. (21.52 ± 3.05) points, t = 5.29, P < 0.001], and QOL score in the PKRP group was significantly lower than that in the TURP group [(1.05 ± 0.18) points vs. (1.58 ± 0.29) points, t = 5.29, 10.98, both P < 0.001]. The incidence of complications in the PKRP group was significantly lower than that in the TURP group ( χ2 = 5.98, P < 0.05). Conclusion:This study investigated the effects of TURP versus PKRP on giant benign prostatic hyperplasia from the aspects including erectile function, QOL, and perioperative indicators. This study is of certain innovation. Findings from this study confirm that both PKRP and TURP can improve erectile function, serum indicators, and urodynamic indicators in patients with giant benign prostatic hyperplasia. PKRP is preferred because it is less invasive, results in better improvements in erectile function, serum indicators, and urodynamic indicators, and has fewer complications than TURP.
