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) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (03) : 194 -197. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2019.03.013

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

输尿管软镜与经皮肾镜治疗一期经皮肾镜术后多发性残石的比较
杜东岭1, 杨春亭1,(), 林佳钦1   
  1. 1. 523110 广东,东莞东华医院(中山大学附属东华医院)泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2017-08-22 出版日期:2019-06-01
  • 通信作者: 杨春亭

A case-control study of retrograde intrarenal surgery and second-stage percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of multiple residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Dongling Du1, Chunting Yang1,(), Jiaqin Lin1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Dongguan Tung Wah Hospital (Tung Wah Hospital Affiliated to Sun Yat-sen University), Guangdong 523110, China
  • Received:2017-08-22 Published:2019-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Chunting Yang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Yang Chunting, Email:
引用本文:

杜东岭, 杨春亭, 林佳钦. 输尿管软镜与经皮肾镜治疗一期经皮肾镜术后多发性残石的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(03): 194-197.

Dongling Du, Chunting Yang, Jiaqin Lin. A case-control study of retrograde intrarenal surgery and second-stage percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of multiple residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(03): 194-197.

目的

比较输尿管软镜(RIRS)和经皮肾镜碎石取石术(PCNL)处理一期PCNL术后多发性残石的临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2016年8月至2018年8月中山大学附属东华医院采用PCNL术后多发性残石78例患者的资料,其中男42例,女36例,平均年龄(46±13)岁,残石2~5个,单个结石直径≤2 cm。78例患者的操作均在一期手术后5~7 d肾造瘘管引流液变清后进行,根据残石的处理方案分为输尿管软镜组(R组)43例和经皮肾镜组(P组)35例,R组进行逆行输尿管软镜取石,P组在原经皮肾镜通道的基础上进行多通道PCNL。

结果

所有操作均成功进行,无严重并发症发生,P组和R组的手术时间、结石清除率等差异无统计学意义;P组在平均血红蛋白浓度下降值(0.95±0.86 vs 0.29±0.45 g/dl)、住院时间(5.7±1.9 vs 1.8±1.5 d)和术后第1天疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS) (5.1±1.1 vs 1.6±0.7)上显著高于R组(P<0.01);P组和R组术后第1天血肌酐较术前升高值分别为(0.22±0.04)mg/dl和(0.07±0.01)mg/dl,(P<0.05)。

结论

RIRS和PCNL处理PCNL术后多发性残石均是安全有效的,输尿管软镜对患者的的影响和术后恢复等方面具有一定的优势。

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and second-stage percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of multiple residual stones after PCNL.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 78 patients with multiple residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in Donghua Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from August 2016 to August 2018, including 42 males and 36 females with an average age of (46±13) years. All the patients had 2-5 residual stones, single stone diameter≤2 cm. The procedure was performed at 5-7 days after one-stage PCNL when the drainage fluid of nephrostomy tube was clear. According to the treatment of the residual stone, the patients were divided into the ureteroscopy group (Group R) and the percutaneous nephrolithoscopic group (Group P). Group R included 43 cases and underwent flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy. Group P included 35 cases and underwent multi-channel percutaneous nephrolithotomy on the basis of one-stage percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Results

All the procedures were successfully performed without major complications. The differences of mean operative time and stone clearance rate in the P group and R group were not significant (P>0.05). The mean decreased value of hemoglobin concentration (0.95±0.86 vs 0.29±0.45 g/dl,P<0.05), the length of hospitalization (5.7±1.9 d vs 1.8±1.5 d,P<0.05) and the VAS value on the first day after operation (5.1 ± 1.1 vs 1.6 ± 0.7,P<0.05) in the P group was higher than that in the R group. The elevated value of serum creatinine on the first day after surgery was (0.22±0.04)mg/dl and (0.07±0.01)mg/dl in the P group and R group, respectively (P<0.05).

Conclusion

RIRS and second-stage PCNL in the treatment of multiple residual stones after PCNL are safe and effective. RIRS had advantages in terms of postoperative pain and recovery.

表1 两组患者的术前基本资料比较
表2 两组患者的术中和术后资料比较
[1]
Jiang H, Yu Z, Chen L, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2017, 2017: 1-14.
[2]
Harraz AM, Osman Y, El-Nahas AR, et al. Residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of intraoperative assessment and postoperative non-contrast computerized tomography[J]. World J Urol, 2017, 35(8): 1241-1246.
[3]
Chen L, Sha ML, Li D, et al.Treatment for residual stones using flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy after the management of complex calculi with single-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Lasers Med Sci, 2017, 32(3): 649-654.
[4]
Aminsharifi A, Irani D, Amirzargar H. Shock wave lithotripsy is more effective for residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy than for primary stones of the same size: a matched pair cohort study[J]. Curr Urol, 2018, 12(1): 27-32.
[5]
Secker A, Rassweiler J, Neisius A. Future perspectives of flexible ureteroscopy[J]. Curr Opin Urol, 2019, 29(2): 113-117.
[6]
梁兆军,黎承杨,程继文, 等.经皮肾镜和逆行输尿管软镜处理≤2 cm肾结石的比较[J/CD].中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(6): 370-374.
[7]
任昌,安瑞华. 输尿管软镜碎石术与经皮肾镜碎石术治疗直径2~4 cm肾结石的疗效比较[J]. 临床与病理杂志, 2018, 38(11): 2421-2426.
[8]
刘杰,白大应,石磊, 等.输尿管软镜与微通道经皮肾镜治疗2~3 cm肾结石的对照研究[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(6): 375-379.
[9]
吴猛,刘良兵,易东风. 软性输尿管镜钬激光碎石术与经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗直径≤2 cm肾结石5年回顾性分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2017, 25(6): 469-471.
[10]
Yuri P, Hariwibowo R, Soeroharjo I, et al. Meta-analysis of optimal management of lower pole stone of 10-20 mm: flexible ureteroscopy (furs) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (eswl) versus percutaneus nephrolithotomy (PCNL)[J]. Acta Med Indones, 2018, 50(1):18-25.
[11]
Gao XS, Liao BH, Chen YT, et al. Different tract sizes of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Endourol. 2017, 31(11): 1101-1110.
[12]
曾国华,李佳眭,赵志健, 等. 逆行软性输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治疗肾结石的有效性与安全性分析[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2015, 36(6): 401-404.
[13]
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.
[14]
Hu JS, Xie GH, Yuan HS, et al. Guide sheath-assisted ureteroscope lithotripsy for upper ureteral calculi: An observational study on 81 cases[J]. Epx Ther Med, 2018, 16(4): 3459-3463.
[15]
Desai M, Sun Y, Buchholz N,et al. Treatment selection for urolithiasis: percutaneous nephrolithomy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and active monitoring[J]. World J Urol, 2017, 35(9): 1395-1399.
[1] 方钟进, 黄华生, 陈早庆, 郁兆存, 郑哲明, 谢永康, 陈仲宁, 邹演辉, 刘乾海, 陈镇宏. 负压组合式输尿管镜联合输尿管软镜与经皮肾镜治疗复杂性肾结石的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 601-604.
[2] 曹智, 朱希望, 王尉, 张辉, 杨成林, 张小明. 经皮肾镜碎石取石术中不同肾盂内压力与围术期并发症相关性研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 616-620.
[3] 陈美仁, 戴逸骅, 张茹, 戴英波. "蛙泳"俯卧位在经皮肾镜术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 581-586.
[4] 龙卫兵, 刘晓冰, 易仁政, 邹德博, 蒋玉斌, 陈亮, 谢超群, 刘红叶, 粟周华, 张雄峰, 李麒麟. CT、B超预定位"三步法"经皮肾镜治疗上尿路结石[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 587-592.
[5] 周川鹏, 杨浩, 魏微阳, 王奇, 黄亚强. 微创与标准通道经皮肾镜治疗肾结石合并肾功能不全的对比研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 470-475.
[6] 张磊, 米洋, 王昌喜, 李曜行, 王小东, 牛旭东, 王靖宇. 一次性输尿管软镜通路鞘两种置入深度的临床研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 486-489,494.
[7] 张星宇, 李炯明, 刘建和, 方克伟, 王光, 杨博伟. 无管化PCNL适应证选择及疗效观察[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 512-515.
[8] 颜廷帅, 全科立, 舒建平, 何高飞. 经皮肾镜碎石取石术中留置双J管制造肾积水的研究进展[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 415-417.
[9] 窦上文, 邓欢, 刘邦锋, 岳高远志, 朱华财, 刘永达. 术前复查尿培养在预测微通道经皮肾镜取石术相关感染并发症中的作用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 361-366.
[10] 陈丽茹, 吴小凤, 唐守艳, 吴婵, 邓含, 冯钰. 废液引流俯卧位包的设计及其在经皮肾镜术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 219-222.
[11] 王鑫, 覃智标, 陈思桦, 张家宙, 毕革文, 雷华, 李起广. 术前低剂量CT预定位及术中B超修正定位在经皮肾镜术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 223-227.
[12] 吴骏超, 和术臣, 王海峰, 王家平, 邱学德. 输尿管软镜与经皮肾镜治疗有经皮肾镜手术史的复杂性结石的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 233-236.
[13] 金敬苗, 韦巍, 钟羽翔, 麦源, 黄剑华, 赵朋朋, 林富祥, 李旷怡, 徐战平. 侧卧位微创经皮肾镜联合Y形负压吸引鞘治疗中老年铸型结石的研究[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 144-148.
[14] 张曦才, 曹先德. 经皮肾镜取石术治疗无积水肾结石中皮肾通道建立的应用研究进展[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 911-915.
[15] 张曦才, 曹先德, 高建萍, 沈大庆, 曹现祥, 郭诗杰, 李凤岳, 肖琳. 免人工肾积水在超声引导经皮肾镜取石术中的应用[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 798-803.
阅读次数
全文


摘要