首页> 外文期刊>Urology >Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate versus transurethral prostatic resection: a comparison of postoperative hemorrhage.
【24h】

Transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate versus transurethral prostatic resection: a comparison of postoperative hemorrhage.

机译:经尿道前列腺电汽化术与经尿道前列腺电切术:术后出血的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To determine the acute and delayed hemorrhage rate of transurethral electrovaporization of the prostate (TEVP) versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: A retrospective review of 524 consecutive patients who underwent TURP and 302 consecutive patients who underwent TEVP was conducted. The indications for both procedures were identical and based on history, physical examination, American Urological Association symptom score, and uroflowmetry. Parameters of evaluation included the incidence of both initial and delayed hemorrhages, the time until a delayed bleed occurred, blood transfusion rates, and the average length of stay in hospital after a bleed. RESULTS: The overall hemorrhage rate for TURP and TEVP was 4.8% and 4.0%, respectively. In the TURP group, there was a 1.1% incidence of acute bleeds and 3.6% incidence of delayed bleeds. For the TEVP group, 0.3% had an acute hemorrhage, and 3.6% were readmitted for clot retention. The average length of time from original discharge to readmission was 12.9 days for the TURP group with a mean repeat stay of 5.7 days. For the TEVP group, the average interval to readmission was 15.4 days with a stay of 3.1 days. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of hemorrhage for the TEVP group was slightly lower than for the TURP group due to fewer acute bleeds. However, the incidence of delayed bleeds and clot retention between the two was identical at 3.6%. Because of improved hemostasis intraoperatively with similar functional results in the long term as shown by other investigators, we foresee TEVP continuing as a viable alternative to TURP.
机译:目的:确定经尿道前列腺电汽化术(TEVP)与标准经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)的急性和延迟出血率。方法:回顾性分析524例连续接受TURP的患者和302例连续接受TEVP的患者。两种手术的适应症均相同,并基于病史,体格检查,美国泌尿科协会症状评分和尿流法。评价的参数包括初次和延迟出血的发生率,直到延迟出血发生的时间,输血率以及出血后的平均住院时间。结果:TURP和TEVP的总出血率分别为4.8%和4.0%。在TURP组中,急性出血的发生率为1.1%,延迟出血的发生率为3.6%。对于TEVP组,有0.3%的患者发生了急性出血,3.6%的患者因血栓保留而重新入院。 TURP组从最初出院到再次入院的平均时间为12.9天,平均重复住院时间为5.7天。对于TEVP组,平均再入院时间为15.4天,停留时间为3.1天。结论:由于较少的急性出血,TEVP组的总出血率略低于TURP组。但是,两者之间延迟的出血和血凝块保留的发生率相同,为3.6%。正如其他研究者所显示的,由于长期内术中止血效果改善,功能结果相似,我们预见TEVP仍将是TURP的可行替代方案。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号