Abstract：Objective: To explore the curative effectiveness of the combination of flexible ureteroscopy and inversion table in the treatment of lower pole renal stone. Methods: Seventy-two patients with unilateral lower pole renal stone were randomly divided into experimental group (combination of flexible ureteroscopy and inversion table treatment group) and control group (flexible ureteroscopy treatment group). For the patients in the experimental group, double-J stent was removed one month after they underwent the operation of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy and received the treatment of inversion table. The patients in the control group, double-J stent wasd also removed one month after they underwent the flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy and drunk 2 000 mL water per day. All the patients were subjected to KUB examination one month after the double-J stent was removed to check out the residual stone fragments. Results: All the patients received well treatment. By the comparison of the patients in experimental and control groups, no statistically significant differences were found in clinical parameters such as age, gender, BMI, size of stone and the intrarenal anatomy. In experimental group, stones in 38 cases out of 39 cases were completely removed with the removing rate reaching 97.4%. In the control group, stones in 27 cases out of 33 cases were completely removed with the rate being 818% (P<0.05). Conclusions: The combination of flexible ureteroscopy and inversion table treatment is a safe and effective way in treating the lower pole renal stone. Therefore, this method is worth continuing to promote and carry out in clinical practice.
崔磊,王少刚,何登,卢宇超,胡恒龙,秦保龙. 输尿管软镜联合倒置排石床治疗肾下盏结石的临床研究[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2014, 3(6): 360-363.
Cui Lei,Wang Shaogang,He Deng,Lu Yuchao,Hu Henglong,Qin Baolong. Clinical research on treatment of lower pole renal stone by combination of flexible ureteroscopy and inversion table. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE UROLOGY, 2014, 3(6): 360-363.
[1]Marshall VF. FIBER OPTICS IN UROLOGY. J Urol, 1964,91:110-114. [2]El-Nahas AR, El-Tabey NA, Eraky I, et al. Semirigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: a multivariate analysis of unfavorable results. J Urol, 2009,181(3):1158-1162. [3]Knoll T, Jessen JP, Honeck P, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10-30 mm size. World J Urol, 2011,29(6):755-759. [4]Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol, 2011,25(7):1131-1135. [5]Ghani KR, Bultitude M, Hegarty N, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) for lower pole calculi. BJU Int, 2012,110(2):294-298. [6]Skolarikos AA, Papatsoris AG, Mitsogiannis IC, et al. Current status of ureteroscopic treatment for urolithiasis. Int J Urol, 2009,16(9):713-717. [7]Rachid Filho D, Favorito LA, Costa WS, et al. Kidney lower pole pelvicaliceal anatomy: comparative analysis between intravenous urogram and three-dimensional helical computed tomography. J Endourol, 2009,23(12):2035-2040. [8]Wolf JS Jr. Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones? Int Braz J Urol, 2002,28(6):572-573. [9]Talas H, Kilic O, Tangal S, et al. Does lower-pole caliceal anatomy predict stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for primary lower-pole nephrolithiasis? Urol Int, 2007,79(2):129-132. [10]Albanis S, Ather HM, Papatsoris AG, et al. Inversion, hydration and diuresis during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: does it improve the stone-free rate for lower pole stone clearance? Urol Int, 2009,83(2):211-216.
