Clinical effects, safety and economical efficiency comparison of different kinds of minimally invasive operation scheme in the treatment of complex upper ureteral calculi
Li Zhuangzhi1
1.Department of Urology, Jingmen First People's Hospital, Jinmen 448000, China
Abstract：Objective: To investigate the clinical effects, safety and economical efficiency differences in transurethral ureteroscope lithotripsy (URL), minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) in the treatment of complex upper ureteral calculi. Methods: 150 patients with complex upper ureteral calculi were chosen in the period from June 2012 to June 2015 in our hospital and randomly divided into three groups: group A (n=50) receiving URL, group B (n=50) receiving MPCNL, and group C (n=50) given RLU. The perioperative clinical indicators, once disposable stone clearance rate, the postoperative complication incidence and the total treatment expenses among three groups were compared. Results: The operation time in group C was significantly longer than in group A and group B (P＜0.05). The blood loss in group B was significantly less than in group A and group C (P＜0.05). The once stone clearance rate in group B and group C was significantly higher than in group A (P＜0.05). The postoperative complication incidence in group C was significantly lower than in group A and group B (P＜0.05). The total treatment expenses in group C was significantly lower than in group A and group B (P＜0.05). Conclusions: Compared with URL and MPCNL, RLU in the treatment of complex upper ureteral calculi can efficiently improve stone clearance effects, reduce the risk of postoperative complications and be helpful to lessen the financial burden.
李壮志. 不同微创取石术式治疗复杂性输尿管上段结石近远期疗效、安全性及经济性比较[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2016, 5(4): 209-212.
Li Zhuangzhi. Clinical effects, safety and economical efficiency comparison of different kinds of minimally invasive operation scheme in the treatment of complex upper ureteral calculi. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE UROLOGY, 2016, 5(4): 209-212.
[1]Neisius A, Wollner J, Thomas C, et al. Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter. BJU Int, 2013,112(7):972-981. [2]Hammady AI, Gamal WM, Zaki M, et a1. Evaluation of ureteral stent placement after retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureteolithotomy for upper ureteral stone: randomized controlled study. J Endourol, 2011,25(5): 825-830. [3]常德辉,周逢海,王养民,等.超声引导下经皮肾碎石清石术治疗上尿路结石381例临床分析.中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版),2012,6(6):429-433. [4]Ozturk MD, Sener NC, Goktug HN, et al. The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones. Can Urol Assoc J, 2013,7(11-12):E673-E676. [5]郝元元,王晓庆,姜凤鸣,等.微通道经皮肾镜钬激光碎石术治疗复杂性输尿管上段结石.中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版),2011,5(3):193-195. [6]董永超,王养民,常德辉,等.两种微创手术治疗复杂性输尿管上段结石的前瞻随机研究.中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版),2014,8(6):23-25. [7]杨科,高智勇,吴万瑞,等.后腹腔镜切开取石治疗肾盂输尿管上段结石并重度肾积水.中国内镜杂志,2012,18(8):837-840. [8]Kreshover JE, Dickstein RJ, Rowe C, et al. Predictors for negative ureteroscopy in the management of upper urinary tract stone disease. Urology, 2011,78(4):748-752. [9] Lopes-Neto AC, Korkes F, Silva JL 2nd, et al. Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy. J Urol, 2012,187(1):164-168. [10]张正彪,马阳日,张洁,等.输尿管镜下钬激光碎石治疗体外震波碎石失败后复杂性输尿管结石.中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版),2013,7(6):29-31. [11]Hammady A, Gamal WM, Zaki M, et al. Evaluation of ureteral stent placement after retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for upper ureteral stone: randomized controlled study. J Endourol, 2011,25(5):825-830. [12]程跃,严泽军.输尿管上段结石治疗首选输尿管软镜.现代泌尿外科杂志,2012,17(1):76-78. [13]殷乾清,陈丽萍,刘峰,等.不同取石方法在嵌顿性输尿管上段结石中的治疗对比.重庆医学,2012,41(36):3828-3830. [14]廖勇,李康,黄建林,等.不同手术方式治疗复杂性输尿管上段结石的疗效比较.昆明医科大学学报,2014,35(2):73-76.
