•1356 •广东医学2020 年 7 月第 41 卷第13 期Guangdong Medical Journal JuL 2020, Vol. 41，No. 13
猴子英语怎么写钬激光剜除术与等离子电切术对良性前列腺增生症
患者术后恢复及性功能影响的比较$
陈宇昕，刘岩A
锦州医科大学附属第一医院泌尿外科（辽宁锦州121001)
九一八纪念馆
【摘要】目的比较经尿道钦激光前列腺剜除术（HoLEP)与等离子前列腺电切术（PKRP)两种术式对
良性前列腺增生症（BPH)患者术后各项指标和生活质量及性功能恢复情况的影响方法回顾性分析7丨
没问题的英文例B P H患者的临床资料，按照术式分为HoLEP组（34例）和PKRP组（3*7例）比较两组患者术后指标情况以
及随访术后丨年的性功能恢复情况，明确两种术式的临床效果结果Ho丨.H P组的膀胱冲洗时间（18.82 土
5_ I3)h、留置导尿时间（1.47 ±0.46)d、住院时间（6. 07 ± 1.01 )d，分别优于PKRP 组的（22. 30 ±5. 0
9) li、
(2.42 ±0.69)d、（？•62 ±0.90) d，差异有统计学意义（P< 0.05)。术后HoLEP组患者的最大尿流率（Qmax)
(21. 76 ±4. 42)mL/s、残余尿量（RUV)(29. 59 ±6. 15)mL及国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS)(10. 29 ± 1.70)分分
别优于PKRP组的（I9.35 ± 192)mL/s、（32. 81±4.8〇) mL、（I I.76 ± 2.I3)分，差异有统计学意义（P <
0.05)。而两组患者术后的Q0L评分差异无统计学意义（f>0.05) e术后随访丨年的U E F-5评分较术前均
有所下降（P<0. 05)，但两组间差异无统计学意义（P>0. 05)：结论HoLEP与PK R P均能明显改善B P H患颈椎病怎么治最好
者的临床症状，但在患者术后整体的恢复情况以及生活质量满意度方面，HoLEP更具优势
【关键词】钦激光剜除术；等离子电切术；前列腺增生；性功能
【中图分类号】H699.6;R616.4 【文献标志码】A
D O I：10. 13820/jki. gdyx.20194025
The effects of holniium lar enucleation and plasma rection on postoperative recovery and xual function in
patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. CHEN Yu - x in, LIU Yan. Department o f Urology, the First Affiliated
Hospital o f Jinzhou Medical University, Jiruhou121001 , Liaoning, China
Corresponding author：LIU Yan. E - m ail：liuyanforest@163. com
【Abstract】Objective To compare the recovery indexes, quality of life and xual function of patients with be
nign prostatic hyperplasia ( BPH ) between transurethral holmium lar enucleation prostatectomy (H o L E P) and plasma prostatectomy (P K R P). Methods The clinical data of 71 patients with BPH admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of
Jinzhou Medical University were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into HoLEP group (34cas) and PKKI}
group (37cas) according to the procedure. The clinical effects of the two procedures were cletermined by comparing the postoperative indicators, recovery of xual function 1year after follow - up. Results The bladder irrigation time ( 18. 82 ±
5. 13 h)，indwelling urinary catheterization time ( 1.47 ±0. 46 d)，and hospital stay (
6. 07 ± 1.01 d) were significantly
馄饨皮千层饼shorter in the HoLEP group than I)KPP group (22. 30 ± 5. 09 h，2. 4 ± 0. 69 (1and 7. 62 ± 0• 90 (1，respectively; P<
0. 05). In HoLEP group，the maximum urinary flow rate (Q m ax，21 _76 ±4.42m L/s)，residual urine volume ( R U V，
29. 59 ±6. 15 m L)，and the international prostate symptom score (IPSS, 10. 29 ± 1. 70) in were significantly better than
幼儿启蒙故事
tho the PKRP group，( 19. 35 ±2. 92 m L/s，32. 81 ±4. 80 mL and 11. 76 ±2. 13，respectively; P <0. 05). There was
no significant difference in QOL score between the two groups after surgery ( P >0. 05). The 1- year follow - up IIEF -购物环境
5 scores were significantly lower than tho before surgery in the both groups (尸< 0. 05 )，but there was no significant difference between the two groups ( P > 0. 05). Conclusion Both HoLEP and PKRP can significantly improve the clini
cal symptoms in BPH patients, hut HoLElP has more advantages in terms of overall recovery and satisfaction of patients after
surgery.李文忠
【Key words】holmium lar enucleation; plasma rection; prostatic hyperplasia; xual function
A 通 fg 作者：刘岩，E -mail:liuyanf()**********.om
