两种无管化经皮肾镜取石术对≤3 cm肾结石患者清石效果及生活质量的影响

doi:10.19558/j.cnki.10-1020/r.2019.02.003

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (704 KB) RICH HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要 目的：探讨部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术和完全无管化经皮肾镜取石术对结石最大径≤3 cm肾结石患者清石效果及生活质量的影响。方法：选取2016年1月–2018年5月收治结石最大径≤3 cm肾结石患者共118例作为研究对象,以随机数字表法分为对照组（59例）和试验组（59例）,分别采用部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术和完全无管化经皮肾镜取石术治疗;比较两组患者清石率、围术期临床指标水平、手术前后威斯康辛结石生活质量问卷（WISQOL）评分及术后并发症发生率。结果：两组患者清石率比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;试验组患者手术操作时间显著少于对照组（P<0.05）;两组患者术后Hb下降值、肾周积液时间、尿外渗时间及总住院时间比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;试验组患者手术前后WISQOL评分差值均显著高于对照组（P<0.05）;试验组患者术后并发症发生率显著低于对照组（P<0.05）。结论：相较于部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术,完全无管化经皮肾镜取石术治疗结石最大径≤3 cm肾结石可有效缩短手术用时,提高生存质量,并有助于降低术后并发症发生风险。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	鲁成军
	董自强
	田金波
	刘刚
	黄剑钊

关键词 ：经皮肾镜取石术, 肾结石, 生活质量, 安全性

Abstract：Objective： To investigate the influence of partial and whole tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy on stone removal and quality of life of patients with renal calculi for maximum diameter ≤3 cm. Methods: 118 patients with renal calculi for maximum diameter ≤3 cm were chosen in the period from January 2016 to May 2018 in our hospital and randomly divided into control group (n=59) with partial tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and experimental group (n=59) with whole tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The stone removal rate, the perioperative clinical indicators, the difference value in preoperative and postoperative WISQOL scores and postoperative complication rate were compared between two groups. Results: There was no significant difference in the stone removal rate between two groups (P<0.05). The operation time in experimental group was significantly longer than in control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the postoperative Hb decrease value, the effusion time, extravasation time and total hospital time between two groups (P<0.05). The difference values in preoperative and postoperative WISQOL scores in experimental group were significantly higher than in control group (P<0.05). The postoperative complication rate in experimental group was significantly lower than in control group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Compared with partial tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy, whole tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of patients with renal calculi for maximum diameter ≤3 cm can efficiently shorten the operation time, improve the quality of life and reduce the postoperative complications risk.

Key words： percutaneous nephrolithotomy renal calculi quality of life safety

收稿日期: 2018-10-15

ZTFLH:

A692.4

通讯作者: 鲁成军,luchj577@126.com

引用本文:

鲁成军, 董自强, 田金波, 刘刚, 黄剑钊. 两种无管化经皮肾镜取石术对≤3 cm肾结石患者清石效果及生活质量的影响[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2019, 8(2): 84-87.
LU Chengjun, DONG Ziqiang, TIAN Jinbo, LIU Gang, HUANG Jianzhao. Influence of two kinds of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy on stone removal and quality of life of patients with renal calculi for maximum diameter 3 cm. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE UROLOGY, 2019, 8(2): 84-87.

链接本文:

http://journal20.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_zgmnwk/CN/abstract/abstract1486.shtml 或 http://journal20.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_zgmnwk/CN/Y2019/V8/I2/84

[1] DE SB, AUTORINO R, KIM FJ, et al.Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol, 2015,67(1):125-137.
[2] LI S, LIU TZ, WANG XH, et al.Randomized controlled trial comparing retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of large renal pelvic calculi: a pilot study. J Endourol, 2014,28(8):946-950.
[3] XUN Y, WANG Q, HU HL, et al.Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis. BMC Urol, 2017,17(1):102-107.
[4] ZHAO PT, HOENIG DM, SMITH A, et al.A randomized controlled comparison of nephrostomy drainage versus ureteral stent following percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the Wisconsin Stone QOL. J Endourol, 2016,30(12):1275-1284.
[5] 那彦群,叶章群,孙颖浩,等.中华泌尿外科疾病诊断治疗指南.北京:人民卫生出版社,2014:137.
[6] DOIZI S, LETENDRE J, BONNEAU C, et al.Comparative study of the treatment of renal stones with flexible ureterorenoscopy in normal weight, obese, and morbidly obese patients. Urology, 2015,85(1):38-44.
[7] DE La, ROSETTE J, GEAVLETE P.The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11, 855 patients. J Endourol, 2014,28(4):131-139.
[8] ASSIMOS DG.Re: management of calyceal diverticular calculi: a comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy. J Urol, 2015,193(4):1275-1276.
[9] GUPTA S, DAS SK, PAL DK.Total tubeless ultra-mini supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a feasibility study. Turk J Emerg Med, 2018,44(4):133-140.
[10] TIRTAYASA PM, YURI P, BIROWO PA.Safety of tubeless or totally tubeless drainage and nephrostomy tube as a drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comprehensive review. Asian J Surg, 2017,40(6):419-423.
[11] AGRAWAL MS, SHARMA M, AGARWAL K.Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy using antegrade tether: a randomized study. J Endourol, 2014,28(6):644-648.
[12] SHAO Q, HUANG S, LI Q, et al.Treatment of parapelvic cyst by internal drainage technology using ureteroscope and Holmium laser. West Indian Med J, 2015,64(3):230-235.
[13] AGHAMIR SM, ELMIMEHR R, MODARESI SS, et al.Comparing bleeding complications of double and single access totally tubeless PCNL: is it safe to obtain more accesses? Urol Int, 2016,96(1):73-76.
[14] ISHII H, RAI B, TRAXER O, et al.Outcome of ureteroscopy for stone disease in patients with horseshoe kidney: Review of world literature. Urol Ann, 2015,7(4):470-474.
[15] MOOSANEJAD N, FIROUZIAN A, HASHEMI SA, et al.Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial. Braz J Med Biol Res, 2016,49(4):e4878.
[16] PENNISTON KL, ANTONELLI JA, VIPRAKASIT DP, et al.Validation and reliability of the Wisconsin stone quality of life questionnaire. J Urol, 2017,197(5):1280-1288.