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) ›› 2020, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (01) : 31 -35. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2020.01.008

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

超微与微创经皮肾镜处理1.5~2.5 cm肾结石的疗效比较
徐明彬1, 黎承杨1,(), 程继文1, 赵嘉闻1, 马晨俊1, 李生华1, 廖乃凯1   
  1. 1. 530021 南宁,广西医科大学第一附属医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2018-08-08 出版日期:2020-02-01
  • 通信作者: 黎承杨

Comparison of super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of kidney stones between 1.5 cm and 2.5 cm

Mingbin Xu1, Chengyang Li1,(), Jiwen Cheng1, Jiawen Zhao1, Chenjun Ma1, Shenghua Li1, Naikai Liao1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, China
  • Received:2018-08-08 Published:2020-02-01
  • Corresponding author: Chengyang Li
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Li Chengyang, Email:
引用本文:

徐明彬, 黎承杨, 程继文, 赵嘉闻, 马晨俊, 李生华, 廖乃凯. 超微与微创经皮肾镜处理1.5~2.5 cm肾结石的疗效比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(01): 31-35.

Mingbin Xu, Chengyang Li, Jiwen Cheng, Jiawen Zhao, Chenjun Ma, Shenghua Li, Naikai Liao. Comparison of super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of kidney stones between 1.5 cm and 2.5 cm[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(01): 31-35.

目的

比较超微经皮肾镜碎石取石术(SMP)和微创经皮肾镜碎石取石术(MPCNL)处理1.5~2.5 cm范围肾结石的疗效。

方法

选取2016年2月至2017年12月我院住院的1.5~2.5 cm肾结石患者,随机分为SMP组和MPCNL组进行治疗,每组32例。SMP组患者年龄1~67岁,平均43岁。结石平均最大径1.9 cm。MPCNL组患者年龄9~69岁,平均45岁。结石平均最大径2.0 cm。比较两组手术时间、术后住院时间、住院费用、术后清石率、并发症发生率等。

结果

两组患者分别成功建立12~14 F和16~18 F肾穿刺通道。SMP组和MPCNL组术后平均住院时间分别为[(2.3±1.3)d vs(5.2±2.0)d,P<0.001];平均手术时间分别为[(92.7±28.5)min vs(72.9±17.6)min,P=0.001];一期结石清除率分别为[90.6%(29/32)vs 87.5%(28/32),P=0.689];平均住院费用分别为[(17 371±3 584)元vs (19 762±4 300)元,P=0.019]。术后需要止痛药分别为3例和10例(P=0.030);术后发热分别为5例和7例,两组均无术中或术后输血患者(P值均>0.05)。

结论

SMP与MPCNL均具有术中损伤小、结石清除率高、并发症少等优点。SMP手术时间较MPCNL长,但术后平均住院日较短,住院费用少,且术后患者舒适度较高。

Objective

To compare the efficacy between super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in the treatment of kidney stones with the size between 1.5 cm and 2.5 cm.

Methods

From Feb. 2016 to Dec. 2017, patients with kidney stones with the size between 1.5 cm and 2.5 cm, agreed to the treatment of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, were enrolled to the study. The patients were randomly divided into SMP groups and MPCNL groups, a total of 64 patients (32 cases for each group) met the study protocol in the end. For the SMP groups and MPCNL groups, the mean age was 43 years (range 1-67 years) and 45 years (range 9-69 years), the average stone diameter is 1.9 cm and 2.0 cm, respectively. The operative time, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization expenses, stone free rate and complication rate between two groups were recorded and compared.

Results

12-14 F or 16-18 F percutaneous renal access were successfully established in SMP and MPCNL group, respectively. The postoperative hospital stay was [(2.3±1.3) days vs (5.2±2.0) day, P<0.001]; The average operation time was [(92.7±28.5) min vs (72.9±17.6) min, P=0.001]; Phase I stone-free rate was [90.6%(29/32) vs 87.5%(28/32), P=0.689]; The average hospitalization expenses was [(17 371±3 584) yuan vs (19 762±4 300) yuan, respectively P=0.019]; The use of painkillers were 3 cases and 10 cases, respectively(P=0.030); The postoperative fever were 5 cases and 7 cases in the two groups, respectively (P>0.05). There was no intraoperative and postoperative blood transfusion cases in the two groups.

Conclusions

Both SMP and mPCNL have the advantages of minimal injury, high removal rate and less complication rate in the treatment of kidney stones with the size between 1.5 cm and 2.5 cm. Compared with MPCNL, SMP showes longer operation time but shorter hospital stay, less hospitalization costs, and the patients accepted SMP feel more comfortable after surgery.

表1 两组肾结石患者术前临床资料的比较
表2 两组患者手术相关资料的比较
表3 两组患者并发症发生率的比较
[1]
曾国华,万肖蓬,陈文忠, 等. 超微经皮肾镜取石术治疗31例肾结石的初步体会[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2014, (1): 6-9.
[2]
龙兆麟,黄韬,廖春贤. 标准通道与微创经皮肾镜取石术在不同肾盂压力下治疗鹿角形肾结石比较[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2018, 34(13): 2217-2220.
[3]
李逊. 微创经皮肾镜取石术[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2008, 29(10): 656.
[4]
Loftus CJ, Hinck B, Makovey I, et al. Mini versus Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the impact of sheath size on intra-renal pelvic pressure and infectious complications in a porcine model[J]. J Endourol, 2018, 32(4): 350-353.
[5]
Ghani KR, Sammon JD, Bhojani N, et al. Trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy use and outcomes in the United States[J]. J Urol, 2013, 190(2): 558-564.
[6]
李翔. J Urology:超微经皮肾镜碎石术(UMP)——结石治疗的利剑[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2016, 11(21): 881.
[7]
徐煜宇,袁耀基,黄晨, 等. 超微经皮肾镜与输尿管软镜处理<3 cm肾结石的Meta分析[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 220-223.
[8]
Ferakis N, Stavropoulos M. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones: Lessons learned from a review of the literature[J]. Urol Ann. 2015, 7(2): 141-148.
[9]
Istanbulluoglu MO, Ozturk B, Gonen M, et a1.Effectiveness of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized study[J]. Int Urol Nephrol, 2009, 41(3): 216-219.
[10]
包华宇,潘文博,伍运筹, 等. 微通道不留置肾造瘘管与常规经皮肾镜治疗单纯性上尿路结石的临床对比研究[J]. 中华临床医师杂志, 2016, 10(4): 89-90.
[11]
张圣平,梁辉,吴海花, 等. 超微经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗26例肾结石的疗效分析[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 236-239.
[12]
Tepeler A, Akman T, Silay MS, et al. Comparison of intrarenal pelvic pressure during micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Urolithiasis, 2014, 42(3): 275-279.
[13]
Gutierrez J, Smith A, Geavlete P, et al. Urinary tract infections and post-operative fever in percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. World J Urol, 2013, 31(5): 1135-1140.
[14]
Kunin M. Bridging septa of the perinphric space:Anatomic, pathologic, and diagnostic considerations[J]. Radiology, 1986, 158(2): 361-365.
[15]
潘建刚,阎家俊,唐爱娟, 等. 微创经皮肾镜碎石术中肾盂压力变化与术后早期并发症发生率的关系[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志, 2008, 23(11): 816-818.
[16]
詹鹰,张宇聪,王康扬, 等. 超微经皮肾镜在上尿路结石治疗中的临床应用[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志, 2017, 32(2): 141-143.
[1] 郑鹏, 吴赛萍, 谢秀璋, 史庆丰. 术前预测感染性肾结石列线图模型的构建及验证[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 299-306.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 方道成, 胡媛媛. 钙和维生素D与肾结石形成关系的研究进展[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 653-656.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 张文涛, 陈俊明, 秦海生, 杨胜进, 余朝辉, 白冰, 王世洋, 段彩莲, 王震. 4.8 F可视肾镜在飞行人员肾脏小结石中的临床应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 593-596.
[8] 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.
[9] 徐哲, 罗杰, 吴强, 李忠, 王晓伟, 郑硕, 郝晓东, 王照. 腹主动脉钙化患者肾结石成分特点及危险因素分析[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 481-485.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[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