微通道经皮肾镜碎石术和输尿管软镜碎石术治疗直径2~3 cm单发肾盂结石的疗效及安全性研究

doi:10.19558/j.cnki.10-1020/r.2020.03.003

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (962 KB) RICH HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要 目的： 探讨微通道经皮肾镜碎石术（MPCNL）和输尿管软镜碎石术（FURS）对直径2~3 cm单发肾盂结石患者疗效及安全性的影响,为后续手术方案的选择提供参考。方法： 回顾性分析郧西县人民医院2016年1月–2019年1月收治173例直径2~3 cm单发肾盂结石患者的临床资料,其中行MPCNL治疗93例设为MPCNL组,行FURS治疗80例设为FURS组;比较两组结石清除率、手术相关指标水平、术后炎症相关因子水平及术后并发症发生率。结果： 两组结石清除率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;FURS组手术用时和总治疗费用均显著多于MPCNL组（P<0.05）;FURS组Hb下降值和住院时间均显著少于MPCNL组（P<0.05）;两组术后炎症相关因子水平比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;两组术后并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论： FURS治疗直径2~3 cm单发肾盂结石在结石清除效果和安全性方面与MPCNL一致,并能够减轻医源性创伤和缩短术后住院时间,具有临床应用价值。

	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
	吴运海
	郝强
	胡彬
	贾洪涛

关键词 ：微通道经皮肾镜, 输尿管软镜, 肾盂结石

Abstract：Objective： To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of MPCNL and FURS for pyelolithiasis with diameter of 2-3 cm. Methods： The clinical data of 173 cases of pyelolithiasis with diameter of 2-3 cm were retrospectively analyzed in the period from January 2016 to January 2019 in our hospital. The patients were divided into two groups including MPCNL group (n=93 given MPCNL) and FURS group (n=80 given FURS). The lithiasis clearance rate, the levels of surgical related indicators, inflammatory related factors after operation and incidence of postoperative complications were compared between two groups. Results： There was no significant difference in the lithiasis clearance rate between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The operation time and total treatment cost in FURS group were significantly increased as compared with those in MPCNL group (P < 0.05). The Hb decline level and hospitalization time in FURS group were significantly reduced as compared with those in MPCNL group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the inflammatory related factors and the incidence of postoperative complications after operation between 2 groups (all P > 0.05). Conclusion： Compared with MPCNL, FURS in the treatment of pyelolithiasis with diameter of 2-3 cm possesses the same lithiasis clearance effects and safety, and can efficiently alleviate iatrogenic trauma degree and shorten hospitalization time.

Key words： microchannel percutaneous nephroscopy flexible ureteroscope pyelolithiasis

收稿日期: 2019-07-19

ZTFLH:

R692.7

通讯作者: 吴运海,yuyunhai777@126.com

引用本文:

吴运海, 郝强, 胡彬, 贾洪涛. 微通道经皮肾镜碎石术和输尿管软镜碎石术治疗直径2~3 cm单发肾盂结石的疗效及安全性研究[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2020, 9(3): 166-170.
WU Yunhai, HAO Qiang, HU Bin, JIA Hongtao. Clinical efficacy and safety of MPCNL and FURS for pyelolithiasis with diameter of 2-3 cm. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE UROLOGY, 2020, 9(3): 166-170.

链接本文:

http://journal20.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_zgmnwk/CN/abstract/abstract1590.shtml 或 http://journal20.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_zgmnwk/CN/Y2020/V9/I3/166

[1] LOFTUS CJ, HINCK B, MAKOVEY I, et al.Mini versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the impact of sheath size on intrarenal pelvic pressure and infectious complications in a porcine model. J Endourol, 2018,32(4):350-353.
[2] GUPTA S, DAS SK, PAL DK.Total tubeless ultra-mini supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A feasibility study. Turk J Urol, 2018,44(4):323-328.
[3] TÜRK C, PETŘÍK A, SARICA K, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol, 2016,69(3):475-482.
[4] WANG Q, GUO J, HU H, et al.Rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: A meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2017,12(2):e0171478.
[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] JONES P, ELMUSSAREH M, ABOUMARZOUK OM, et al.Role of minimally invasive (micro and ultra-mini) PCNL for adult urinary stone disease in the modern era: evidence from a systematic review. Curr Urol Rep, 2018,19(4):27-35.
[7] WRIGHT A, RUKIN N, SMITH D, et al.'Mini, ultra, micro' - nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol, 2016,8(2):142-146.
[8] TAKAZAWA R, KITAYAMA S, TSUJII T.Appropriate kidney stone size for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: When to Switch to a percutaneous approach. World J Nephrol, 2015,4(1):111-117.
[9] DESAI JD.Prospective outcomes of 11-13Ch.ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): A consecutive cohort study. Arch Esp Urol, 2017,70(1):202-210.
[10] KARAKAN T, KILINC MF, BAGCIOGLU M, et al.Comparison of ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in moderate-size renal stones. Arch Esp Urol, 2017,70(5):550-555.
[11] HAGHIGHI R, ZERAATI H, GHORBAN MZ.Ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus standard PCNL: A randomised clinical trial. Arab J Urol, 2017,15(4):294-298.
[12] AGRAWAL MS, AGARWAL K, JINDAL T, et al.Ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A minimally-invasive option for percutaneous stone removal. Indian J Urol, 2016,32(2):132-136.
[13] DEMIRBAS A, RESORLU B, SUNAY MM, et al.Which should be preferred for moderate-size kidney stones? Ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy or retrograde intrarenal surgery? J Endourol, 2016,30(12):1285-1289.
[14] HAN DH, JEON SH.Stone-breaking and retrieval strategy during retrograde intrarenal surgery. Investig Clin Urol, 2016,57(4):229-230.
[15] BERARDINELLI F, PROIETTI S, CINDOLO L, et al.A prospective multicenter European study on flexible ureterorenoscopy for the management of renal stone. Int Braz J Urol, 2016,42(3):479-486.
[16] KO YH, JI YS, PARK SY, et al.Procalcitonin determined at emergency department as an early indicator of progression to septic shock in patient with sepsis associated with ureteral calculi. Int Braz J Urol, 2016,42(2):270-276.