切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2017, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (01) : 38 -41. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2017.01.009

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

输尿管软镜与微通道经皮肾镜治疗肾结石(≤2 cm)的比较
冷松柏1, 钟毅2, 黄明2,()   
  1. 1. 341000 赣州,赣南医学院研究生院
    2. 341000 赣州,赣南医学院第三附属医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2016-04-06 出版日期:2017-02-01
  • 通信作者: 黄明
  • 基金资助:
    江西省赣南医学院研究生创新资金项目(YC2005-X008)

Comparison of flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy and microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy lithotripsy for treatment of kidney stones (≤2 cm)

Songbai Leng1, Yi Zhong2, Ming Huang2,()   

  1. 1. Graduate School of Gannan Medical University, Jiangxi 341000, China
    2. Department of Urology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Jiangxi 341000, China
  • Received:2016-04-06 Published:2017-02-01
  • Corresponding author: Ming Huang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Huang Ming, Email:
引用本文:

冷松柏, 钟毅, 黄明. 输尿管软镜与微通道经皮肾镜治疗肾结石(≤2 cm)的比较[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(01): 38-41.

Songbai Leng, Yi Zhong, Ming Huang. Comparison of flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy and microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy lithotripsy for treatment of kidney stones (≤2 cm)[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2017, 11(01): 38-41.

目的

通过输尿管软镜下钬激光碎石取石术及微通道经皮肾镜钬激光碎石取石术治疗肾结石(≤2 cm)对比研究,探讨输尿管软镜下取石术在中小体积肾结石微创治疗中的优势与价值。

方法

回顾性分析2014年1月至2015年12月在赣南医学院第三附属医院行肾结石(≤2 cm)手术治疗的283例患者病历资料,其中采用输尿管软镜下取石术治疗137例,采用微通道经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗146例。比较两种碎石术的结石清除率、平均手术时间、术后下床活动时间、平均住院时间、术后血红蛋白下降水平以及术后各种并发症。

结果

输尿管软镜下取石术组术后下床活动时间、平均住院时间、术后血红蛋白下降水平及手术时间都明显低于微通道经皮肾镜取石术组(6.7±1.4)h vs(14.6±2.1)h,(49±5)h vs(120±19)h,(3.9±0.7)g/L vs (19.5±12.0)g/L,(36±14)h vs(54±17)h,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);术后两者结石清除率分别为95.89%和94.89%(χ2=0.150,P=0.699),差异无统计意义(P=0.687);两者并发症发生率差异无统计意义(χ2=0.150,P>0.05)。

结论

运用输尿管软镜下取石术治疗肾结石(≤2 cm),具有手术所需时间短,创伤小,术中出血量少,术后恢复快等优点。

objective

To assess and compare the security, efficacy bewteen holmium laser lithotripsy of microchannel percutaneous nephro1ithotomy(MPCNL) and holmium laser lithotripsy of flexible ureteroscope (F-URL) for renal calculi (≤2 cm).

Methods

The 283 patients with kidney stones (≤2 cm) were analyzed in our hospital from January 2014 to December 2015. 137 patients were treated by F-URL, 146 patients were treated by MPCNL. The stone-free rate, average operation time, time for exercise after operation, average length of stay at hospital, postoperative haemoglobin levels and postoperative complications were evaluated.

Results

Average operation time, time for exercise after operation, average length of stay at hospital, postoperative haemoglobin levels of F-URL group were significantly lower than MPCNL group (6.7±1.4) h vs (14.6±2.1) h, (49±5) h vs (120±19) h, (3.9±0.7) g/L vs (19.5±12.0) g/L, (36±14) h vs (54±17) h, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.01). The differences of stone-free rate in the two groups were not statistically significant (95.89% vs 94.89%, χ2=0.150, P=0.699) , and the differences of postoperative complications rate in the two groups were not statistically significant (χ2=0.150, P=0.687).

Conclusion

The F-URL on kidney stones (≤2cm) can obtain satisfactory curative effect for patients with one renal calculus, which has less operation time, less trauma, less bleeding, less postoperative hospital stay.

表1 MPCNL与F-URL两组术前情况的比较(±s
表2 MPCNL和F-URL两组患者的围手术期及术后的数据比较
[1]
那彦群,叶章群,孙颖浩,等.中华泌尿外科疾病诊断治疗指南[M].北京:人民卫生出版社, 2014: 137.
[2]
Sener NC, Imamoglu MA, Bas O, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower Pole stones smaller than 1 cm[J]. Urolithiasis, 2014, 42(2): 127-131.
[3]
El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower Pole stones of 10-20 mm[J]. BJU Int, 2012, 110(6): 898-902.
[4]
Akman T, Binbay M, Ozgor F, et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2-4 cm stones: a matched-pair analysis[J]. BJU Int, 2012, 109(9): 1384-1389.
[5]
Zhang LJ, Ye XJ, Huang XB, et al. Comparison of tubeless-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy in treatment of upper-ureteral calculi sized ≥1.5 cm[J]. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao, 2015, 47(1): 170-174.
[6]
Zhong W, Leto G, Wang L, et al. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a study of risk factors[J]. J Endourol, 2015, 29(1): 25-28.
[7]
Stuurman RE, Al-Qahtani SM, Cornu J. Antegrade percutaneous flexible endoscopic approach for the management of urinary Diversion-Associated complications[J]. J Endourol, 2013, 27(11): 1330-1334.
[8]
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[J]. Urology, 2015, 85(1): 38-44.
[9]
Bozkurt OF, Tepeler A, Sninsky BA, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of kidney stone within pelvic ectopic kidney[J]. Urology, 2014, 84(6): 1285-1289.
[10]
Ishii H, Aboumarzouk OM, Somani BK. Current status of ureteroscopy for stone disease in pregnancy[J]. Urolithiasis, 2014, 42(1): 1-7.
[11]
Ishii H, Rai B, Traxer O, et al. Outcome of ureteroscopy for stone disease in patients with horseshoe kidney:Review of world literature[J]. Urol Ann, 2015, 7(4): 470-474.
[12]
Guo J, Yang WZ, Zhang Y, et al. Ultramini nephrostomy tract combined with flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of multiple renal calculi in paediatric patients[J]. Korean J Urol, 2015, 56(7): 519-524.
[13]
Assimos DG. Re: management of calyceal diverticular calculi: a comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy[J]. J Urol, 2015, 193(4): 1275-1276.
[14]
Liu K, Xiao CL, Liu YQ, et al. Management of calyceal diverticular calculi with stenotic infundibulum by flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser infundibulectomy and lithotripsy[J]. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao, 2015, 47(4): 618-621.
[15]
Zhao Q, Huang S, Li Q, et al. Treatment of parapelvic cyst by internal drainage technology using ureteroscope and Holmium laser[J]. West Indian Med J, 2015, 64(3): 230-235.
[1] 曹彬, 王强, 卢扬柏, 黄红星, 黄亚强, 龙永富, 钟睿, 李灿永, 罗刚. 单孔经皮肾镜和腹腔镜处理肾囊肿的术式对比研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 566-571.
[2] 石兵, 张智, 陈金海, 唐文. 基于电磁跟踪和手术导航系统的实时超声引导下两种经皮肾盏穿刺方法的应用[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 572-578.
[3] 吴春风, 卢国汉, 姚汝贺, 李健辉, 陈文杰, 黄宇. 21 F膀胱镜鞘联合8.0/9.8 F输尿管镜与等离子电切镜在膀胱结石钬激光碎石术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 579-584.
[4] 王铭池, 梁乐琦, 刘永达. 基于NHANES数据库分析血脂与肾结石之间的关系[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 485-490.
[5] 杜贵伟, 陆勇, 成博, 贺薏, 梁爽. 钬激光碎石术术后联合坦索罗辛治疗对输尿管结石患者的影响分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 491-496.
[6] 莫淇舟, 苏劲, 黄健, 李健维, 李思宁, 柳建军. 智能控压输尿管软镜碎石吸引取石术在直径10~25 mm上尿路结石中的应用[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 497-502.
[7] 方道成, 唐春华, 胡媛媛. 肠道菌群对草酸钙肾结石形成的影响[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 509-513.
[8] 苏博兴, 肖博, 李建兴. 2024年美国泌尿外科学会年会结石领域手术治疗相关热点研究及解读[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 303-308.
[9] 莫林键, 杨舒博, 农卫赟, 程继文. 人工智能虚拟数字医师在钬激光前列腺剜除日间手术患教管理中的应用[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 318-322.
[10] 张斌, 孙代宇, 胡昕, 韩菲, 李久明, 李功雨, 吴伟力, 冯宝富, 彭国辉. 评分系统预测不同经验手术者输尿管软镜术后结石清除率准确性的比较研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 353-360.
[11] 麦子结, 曾学晴, 张乾升, 刘永达. 输尿管软镜术后严重出血治疗的初步探索[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 366-371.
[12] 莫淇舟, 柳建军, 叶木石, 黄兴端, 李健维, 李思宁, 黄健, 苏劲. 二期原通道经皮肾镜联合输尿管软镜治疗经皮肾镜术后残石[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 380-385.
[13] 唐瑞政, 李舒珏, 吴文起. 果蝇模型在肾结石研究中的应用[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 214-218.
[14] 詹留松, 刘百川, 赵建朋, 薛国详. 可弯曲负压吸引鞘辅助输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 271-276.
[15] 曾明辉, 蒋东方, 秦锁炳. 钬激光前列腺剜除术治疗前列腺增生疗效的影响因素[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 157-161.
阅读次数
全文


摘要