Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of various energy blocks in the bipolar prostate surgery
https://doi.org/10.17238/PmJ1609-1175.2017.1.88-90
Abstract
Objective. The purpose of research is a comparative evaluation of the results of prostate bipolar vasoresection using a variety of electrosurgical units. Methods. 34 patients (study group) was performed bipolar vasoresection on Thunderbeat platform, and 40 (control group) - with UES-40 Electrosurgical Unit. Results. The operative time was 62±2,8 min for main group and 79±2,9 min for the control one. Saline flow during operation amounted to 14.7±0.7 and 19.4±0.9 L, respectively. The volume intraoperative blood loss in the study group was 44.9±3.1 ml (15 to 85 ml) in control - 76.3±7.6 mL (20 to 200 ml). Conclusions. The use of modern electrosurgical systems can significantly facilitate the surgeon's work and protects the patient from different electro-complications. In our experience, the use of advanced "smart" bipolar electrosurgical unit brought prostate vasoresection to a new level.
About the Authors
D. V. Semyonychev
Railway Clinical Hospital in Gorkiy station
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
F. A. Sevryukov
Railway Clinical Hospital in Gorkiy station
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
D. A. Sorokin
Railway Clinical Hospital in Gorkiy station
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
I. V. Karpukhin
Railway Clinical Hospital in Gorkiy station
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. B. Puchkin
Railway Clinical Hospital in Gorkiy station
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. D. Kochkin
Railway Clinical Hospital in Gorkiy station
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. V. Knutov
Railway Clinical Hospital in Gorkiy station
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Аль-Шукри, С.Х., Иванов А.О., Корнеев И.А. Профилактика и лечение ТУР-синдрома у больных с ДГПЖ // Съезд ассоциации урологов Дона: тез. докл. Ростов-на-Дону, 1996. С. 10-11.
2. Ефремов А.П. Аденома простаты - проявление мужского климакса // Лекарственные растения. 2002. № 3. С. 17-21.
3. Забродина Н.Б. Сравнительный анализ эффективности открытой чреспузырной простатэктомии и трансуретральной электрорезекции у больных доброкачественной гиперплазией простаты: автореф. дис.. канд. мед. наук. М., 2001. 24 с.
4. Полосьянц О.Б. Артериальная гипертензия и доброкачественная гиперплазия предстательной железы. Современные подходы к лечению // Неотложная терапия. 2007. Т. 1, № 2. С. 88-93.
5. Пушкарь Д.Ю., Раснер П.И. Нарушение мочеиспускания и сексуальной функции у больных доброкачественной гиперплазией предстательной железы // Врач. 2003. № 6. С. 34-38.
6. Урология: национальное руководство / под ред. Н.А. Лопаткина. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2009. 1024 с.
7. Ghozzi S., Ghorbel J., Ben Ali M. [et al.]. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective randomized study // Prog. Urol. 2014. Vol. 24, No. 2. P. 121-126.
8. Komura K., Inamoto T., Takai T. [et al.]. Could transurethral resection of the prostate using the TURis system take over conventional monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate? A randomized controlled trial and midterm results // Urology. 2014. Vol. 84, No. 2. P. 405-411.
9. Novara A., Galfanoa M., Gardi А. [et al.]. Critical review of guidelines for BPH diagnosis and treatment strategy // Eur. Urol. 2006. No. 5. P. 418-429.
Review
For citations:
Semyonychev D.V., Sevryukov F.A., Sorokin D.A., Karpukhin I.V., Puchkin A.B., Kochkin A.D., Knutov A.V. Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of various energy blocks in the bipolar prostate surgery. Pacific Medical Journal. 2017;(1):88-90. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17238/PmJ1609-1175.2017.1.88-90
Views:
326
Email this article 