Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology · 2002
[Comparative study of transurethral electrovaporization of prostate versus transurethral resection of prostate on benign prostatic hyperplasia].
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Zhen-Lin, Wang Xiao-Fang, Li Bin, Ji Jing-Tao, Hou Si-Chuan, Shao Shi-Xiu, Liu Yong, Sun Li-Jiang, Dong Sheng-Guo, Yan Jing-Zhong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of transurethral electrovaporization of prostate (TUVP) with transurethral resection of prostate (TURP).
METHODS: 206 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) whose prostatic sizes were all less than 60 grams were randomly divided into two groups. 97 cases were treated by TUVP while the other 109 cases were treated by TURP. The patients who underwent either TUVP or TURP were followed up for 12-34 months with an average of 20 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Both groups showed the significant decline in the mean IPSS (international prostatic symptom score) (P < 0.01), the mean PVR (Postovoiding Residual Volume) (P < 0.01), while increase in mean Qmax (Peak uroflow rate) (P < 0.01) in 12 months, 24 months after the operation. There were significant differences in the mean duration of operation or catheterization postoperatively (P < 0.05). The main complications of post-operation in the two groups were stress incontinence, TUR syndrome, urethral stricture, secondary bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: Both TUVP and TURP are effective treatment for the patient with BPH whose prostatic size is less than 60 grams. TUVP spends shorter time of the operation and postoperative catheterization than that of TURP.
METHODS: 206 patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) whose prostatic sizes were all less than 60 grams were randomly divided into two groups. 97 cases were treated by TUVP while the other 109 cases were treated by TURP. The patients who underwent either TUVP or TURP were followed up for 12-34 months with an average of 20 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Both groups showed the significant decline in the mean IPSS (international prostatic symptom score) (P < 0.01), the mean PVR (Postovoiding Residual Volume) (P < 0.01), while increase in mean Qmax (Peak uroflow rate) (P < 0.01) in 12 months, 24 months after the operation. There were significant differences in the mean duration of operation or catheterization postoperatively (P < 0.05). The main complications of post-operation in the two groups were stress incontinence, TUR syndrome, urethral stricture, secondary bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: Both TUVP and TURP are effective treatment for the patient with BPH whose prostatic size is less than 60 grams. TUVP spends shorter time of the operation and postoperative catheterization than that of TURP.