| Objective:compare and evaluate the clinic efficacy of which treated by transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for Benign Prostatic hyperplasia.Methods:All 1424 cases of Prostatic hyperplasia were divided into 2 groups; 754 cases treated by HoLEP and 670 cases treated by TURP. The clinic results were measured and compared between the 2 groups by 3 years of follow-up.Results:Irrigating fluid absorption Comparison about HoLEP and TURP was(596.4±96.2)ml and (1308±110.4)ml; and blood loss for two groups was(110.1±20.4) ml and (280.0±40.5)ml; reseeted prostate weight for two groups was (23.0±2.5)g and (26.4±3.1)g; operating time of two groups was (50.6±16.8)min and (44.6±12.0)min; and time of hospital stay after operation about two groups was (4.5±1.2)d and(6.6±1.4)d,and so. Significant differences were found between the 2 groups(P<0.05). Blood transfusion needed 1.1% of HoLEP group, but 6.1% in TURP group, postoperative bladder irrigation in 4.0% of HoLEP group but 93% in TURP group. No hyponatremia happened in HoLEP group,but 45.2% happened in TURP group. all the cases were followed up for 3 years.Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QOL improved significantly compared with after operation(P<0.05)and No significant difference was found for 3 months'follow-up (P>0.05) between the 2 groups. The same results for 6 months' follow-up(P>0.05). IPSS of HoLEP group improved significantly compared with TURP group for 1 years' follow-up (P<0.05), No significant difference was found in Qmax between 2 groups (P>0.05). IPSS and PVR of HoLEP group improved significantly compared with TURP group for 2 years'follow-up(P<0.05). PVR of HoLEP group improved significantly compared with TURP group for 3 years' follow-up (P<0.05).Conclusions:HoLEP is more safe to TURP, same effective as TURP, needs shorter recovery time after operating, less blood transfusion, and Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QOL improved significantly. It may take the place of TURP for the treatment of BPH.
|
PDF Full Text Request