TURP、ThuLEP、PKRP三种术式治疗高危前列腺增生的疗效分析
Efficacy Analysis of TURP, ThuLEP, and PKRP in the Treatment of High-Risk Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
摘要: 目的：探索经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)、等离子电切术(PKRP)及铥激光剜除术(ThuLEP)三种术式用于治疗高危良性前列腺增生的手术疗效。方法：选取2018年7月到2025年10月本院收治的227例前列腺增生患者作为研究对象，根据手术方式分为TURP组(77例)、PKRP组(78例)及ThuLEP组(72例)，比较三组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后膀胱冲洗时间、术后导尿管留置时间、术后并发症发生率、经济学指标等。结果：相对于TURP组的术后膀胱冲洗时间(2.00 d)与导尿管留置时间(7.50 d)，PKRP组及ThuLEP组均短于TURP组，PKRP组术后膀胱冲洗时间与导尿管留置时间分别为(1.50 d)与(7.00 d)，ThuLEP组术后膀胱冲洗时间与导尿管留置时间分别为(1.00 d)与(7.00 d)；术后并发症方面，TURP组最高(29.87%)，ThuLEP组最低(23.61%)，PKRP组居中(26.92%)；经济学方面，TURP组(13059.24元)，显著高于ThuLEP组(11874.59元)与PKRP组(12807.77元)，且差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论：三种术式均可用于高危前列腺增生的治疗，其中ThuLEP在术中出血控制、术后恢复速度及并发症预防方面优势显著，PKRP表现均衡，TURP需重点关注其并发症预防及复发率。
Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PKRP), and thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) in the treatment of high-risk benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: A total of 227 patients with BPH admitted to our hospital from July 2018 to October 2025 were enrolled and divided into three groups according to the surgical procedure: TURP group (77 cases), PKRP group (78 cases), and ThuLEP group (72 cases). The three groups were compared in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative bladder irrigation time, postoperative catheter indwelling time, incidence of postoperative complications, and economic parameters. Results: Compared with the TURP group, which had a postoperative bladder irrigation time of 2.00 days and a catheter indwelling time of 7.50 days, both the PKRP and ThuLEP groups had shorter durations. The PKRP group had a bladder irrigation time of 1.50 days and a catheter indwelling time of 7.00 days, while the ThuLEP group had a bladder irrigation time of 1.00 day and a catheter indwelling time of 7.00 days. Regarding postoperative complications, the TURP group had the highest incidence (29.87%), the ThuLEP group had the lowest (23.61%), and the PKRP group was intermediate (26.92%). In terms of economic parameters, the total hospitalization cost in the TURP group (RMB 13059.24) was significantly higher than that in the ThuLEP group (RMB 11874.59) and the PKRP group (RMB 12807.77), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). Conclusion: All three surgical procedures are feasible for the treatment of high-risk BPH. Among them, ThuLEP demonstrates significant advantages in intraoperative blood loss control, postoperative recovery speed, and complication prevention. PKRP shows balanced performance, while TURP requires special attention to complication prevention and recurrence rate.
文章引用：周若晨, 伍晓雅, 胡智超, 张曜涵, 陆兆祥. TURP、ThuLEP、PKRP三种术式治疗高危前列腺增生的疗效分析[J]. 临床医学进展, 2026, 16(8): 527-535. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2026.1682823

参考文献

[1] 刘珍, 安康, 殷波, 等. 经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术与电切术治疗高危良性前列腺增生症疗效比较[J]. 中国男科学杂志, 2021, 35(4): 45-48.
[2] 黄玉清, 张良, 魏胜红. 经尿道等离子前列腺剜除术与电切术治疗高危良性前列腺增生症的临床效果[J]. 中国当代医药, 2023, 30(11): 72-76.
[3] Reich, O., Gratzke, C. and Stief, C.G. (2006) Techniques and Long-Term Results of Surgical Procedures for BPH. European Urology, 49, 970-978.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.072
[4] 许凯, 刘春晓. 经尿道双极等离子体前列腺剜除术治疗良性前列腺增生症1100例[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2012, 28(14): 2395-2397.
[5] Enikeev, D., Netsch, C., Rapoport, L., Gazimiev, M., Laukhtina, E., Snurnitsyna, O., et al. (2019) Novel Thulium Fiber Laser for Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate: A Prospective Comparison with Conventional Transurethral Resection of the Prostate. International Journal of Urology, 26, 1138-1143.
https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14115
[6] 赵文超, 李文琦, 金鑫, 等. 经尿道前列腺钬激光剜除术与经尿道前列腺电切术在治疗前列腺增生中的临床疗效对比[J]. 系统医学, 2018, 3(20): 4-6+32.
[7] 李恒. 经尿道前列腺钬激光剜除术与经尿道前列腺电切术治疗良性前列腺增生的效果对比[J]. 当代医药论丛, 2026, 24(1): 70-72.
[8] 覃鹤林, 覃斌, 吴清国, 等. 经尿道前列腺等离子剜除术对比经尿道前列腺等离子电切术治疗大体积良性前列腺增生症的疗效评估[J]. 现代医学与健康研究电子杂志, 2025, 9(3): 41-43.
[9] 左超, 杨昆霖, 车新艳, 等. “U”形整叶法经尿道光纤铥激光前列腺剜切术治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效和安全性[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2024, 45(7): 515-520.
[10] 左超, 等. 比较前列腺体积不同的患者经尿道光纤铥激光前列腺剜除术的有效性及安全性[J/OL]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 1-12.
https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.4691.R.20250609.1006.004, 2026-04-15.
[11] Bozzini, G., Berti, L., Aydoğan, T.B., Maltagliati, M., Roche, J.B., Bove, P., et al. (2020) A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Comparison between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP). World Journal of Urology, 39, 2375-2382.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03468-6
[12] Zhang, J., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Shi, C., Tu, M. and Shi, G. (2019) 1470 nm Diode Laser Enucleation vs Plasmakinetic Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Randomized Study. Journal of Endourology, 33, 211-217.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0499
[13] 唐光社. 经尿道等离子前列腺电切术与剜除术治疗前列腺增生疗效对比分析[J]. 中国现代医生, 2017, 55(10): 56-58.
[14] 郝磊, 吴锋. 经尿道等离子切割手术治疗良性前列腺增生的临床效果[J]. 中外医学研究, 2021, 19(16): 165-168.
[15] 卢灿峰, 刘刚, 贾招辉, 等. 三种手术方法治疗前列腺增生的疗效对比[J]. 中国临床医生杂志, 2021, 49(11): 1353-1356.
[16] Li, Y., Yuan, Z., Zheng, J. and Ren, Q. (2025) Clinical Efficacy Study of Transurethral Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate and Transurethral Bipolar Plasma Resection of the Prostate in the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Archivos Españoles de Urología, 78, Article No. 490.
https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20257804.65
[17] 刘畅, 刘志鹏, 凌传江. 经尿道前列腺等离子剔除术与经尿道前列腺电切术治疗前列腺增生的效果及并发症比较[J]. 临床医学研究与实践, 2025, 10(21): 88-91.
[18] 吴承聪. 经尿道前列腺等离子电切术和剜除术对良性前列腺增生的临床效果对比[J]. 中国医学创新, 2025, 22(16): 55-59.
[19] Baboudjian, M., Hashim, H., Bhatt, N., Creta, M., De Nunzio, C., Gacci, M., et al. (2024) Summary Paper on Underactive Bladder from the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. European Urology, 86, 213-220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.04.004
[20] Sandhu, J.S., Bixler, B.R., Dahm, P., Goueli, R., Kirkby, E., Stoffel, J.T., et al. (2024) Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): AUA Guideline Amendment 2023. Journal of Urology, 211, 11-19.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000003698

为你推荐