肾盂低压并高效清石的增强版超微经皮肾镜技术

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2021.02.005

目的

近年来超微经皮肾镜碎石取石术（SMP）技术飞速发展，逐步成熟，但14 F超微通道处理大负荷肾结石可能导致手术时间延长。我们在SMP基础上将灌注负压吸引鞘增大为18 F，以期提高碎石效率并保持肾盂内低压。本研究通过对比分析18 F增强版超微经皮肾镜碎石取石术（eSMP）与同为18 F通道的微创经皮肾镜碎石取石术（mPCNL）治疗2～5 cm肾结石的术中肾盂内压及取石效率等指标，验证eSMP技术的安全有效性。

方法

2017年1月至2019年12月，我院100例肾结石患者接受PCNL治疗，随机分入eSMP组和mPCNL组。建立18 F通道，eSMP组采用灌注吸引鞘，mPCNL组采用剥离鞘，分别用超微肾镜（11 F）和8/9.8 F输尿管镜，钬激光联合气压弹道碎石器碎石取石。术中监测肾盂内压，并记录手术时间、碎石时间、结石体积以及并发症等数据，进行统计学分析。

结果

mPCNL组与eSMP组取出结石体积差异无统计学意义，但mPCNL组碎石取石所耗时间显著长于eSMP组[（50.1±19.6）min vs （35.3±14.3）min，t=4.314，P<0.001]，因而单位时间内eSMP取石更多[（13.66±1.17）mm³/h vs （9.78±1.23）mm³/h，t=16.150，P<0.001]，且总的手术时间上mPCNL组相较eSMP组也显著延长[（67.3±19.5）min vs（52.1±14.4）min，t=4.429，P<0.001]。术中肾盂内压mPCNL组显著高于eSMP组[（17.88±3.28）mmHg vs（12.01±2.45）mmHg，t=10.140，P<0.001]，mPCNL组术中肾盂内压>30 mmHg累计时间显著长于eSMP组[（23.2±16.6） s vs （3.8±4.3） s，t=8.012，P<0.001]。术后血红蛋白下降量mPCNL组较eSMP组更显著[（17.1±6.8）g/L vs（14.0±7.5）g/L，t=2.182，P=0.032]。两组患者术后发热率、结石清除率的差异均无统计学意义，但mPCNL组住院时间显著长于eSMP组[（2.98±0.87）d vs （2.60±0.78）d，t=2.298，P<0.001]。

结论

增强版SMP（eSMP）借助于灌注负压吸引鞘，相较传统mPCNL，能够提高碎石取石效率，并保持术中较低的肾盂内压，治疗2～5 cm肾结石是安全有效的。

关键词: 肾结石, 经皮肾镜, 肾盂内压, 碎石效率, 前瞻性研究

Objective

In recent years, the super mini-PCNL (SMP) technique has developed rapidly and matured gradually. However, the operation time may be prolonged when manage the large burden renal calculi with 14 F tract. On the basis of SMP, the suction sheath was increased to 18 F, in the aim to improve the lithotripsy efficiency and keep a low renal pelvic pressure, which was called enhanced-SMP (eSMP). In the present study, eSMP and mini-PCNL was compared to analyze the intra-operative renal pelvic pressure and stone removal efficiency when managed the 2-5 cm renal calculi, and to verify the safety and efficiency of eSMP technique.

Methods

From January 2017 to December 2019, 100 patients with 2-5 cm renal calculi in our hospital were randomly divided into eSMP group and mPCNL group. 18 Fpercutaneous tract was established, suction sheath with 11 F mini nephroscope and peel-away sheath with 8/9.8 F ureteroscope was used in eSMP and mPCNL, respectively. Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotriptor was used for lithotripsy. During the operation, renal pelvic pressure was measured, operation time, lithotripsy time, removed stone volume and complications were recorded and analyzed statistically.

Results

There was no significant difference in the stone volume removed between mPCNL group and eSMP group, but the lithotripsy time in mPCNL was significantly longer than eSMP group [(50.1±19.6) min vs (35.3±14.3)min, t=4.314, P<0.001], thus the stone removal effectiveness was higher in eSMP group [(13.66±1.17) mm³/h vs (9.78±1.23) mm³/h, t=16.150, P<0.001], and the total operation time in mPCNL group was longer than eSMP group [(67.3±19.5) min vs (52.1±14.4) min, t=4.429, P<0.001]. The intra-operative renal pelvic pressure in mPCNL group was higher than eSMP group [(17.88±3.28) mmHg vs (12.01±2.45) mmHg, t=10.140, P<0.001], and also the accumulated time of renal pelvic pressure >30 mmHg in mPCNL group was longer than eSMP group [(23.2±16.6) s vs (3.8±4.3) s, t=8.012, P<0.001]. The postoperative decreased hemoglobin in mPCNL group was more than eSMP group [(17.1±6.8) g/L vs (14.0±7.5) g/L, t=2.182, P=0.032]. There was no significant difference in the postoperative fever rate and stone clearance rate, while the hospital stay in mPCNL group was longer than eSMP group [(2.98±0.87) d vs (2.60±0.78) d, t=2.298, P<0.001].

Conclusion

Enhanced SMP (eSMP) was safe and effective in the management of 2-5 cm renal calculi. On the basis of irrigation-suction sheath, eSMP can keep a lower renal pelvic pressure and higher lithotripsy efficiency when compared to traditional mPCNL.

Key words: Renal calculi, PCNL, Renal pelvic pressure, Lithotripsy efficiency, Prospective study

表1 mPCNL对比eSMP治疗2～5 cm肾结石患者一般资料

组别	例数	性别(例)		年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	糖尿病[例，(%)]	高血压[例，(%)]	尿路感染[例，(%)]	结石最大径[cm，(±s)]	结石CT值[Hu，(±s)]	血肌酐[μmol/L，(±s)]	血红蛋白[g/L，(±s)]
组别	例数	男	女	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	糖尿病[例，(%)]	高血压[例，(%)]	尿路感染[例，(%)]	结石最大径[cm，(±s)]	结石CT值[Hu，(±s)]	血肌酐[μmol/L，(±s)]	血红蛋白[g/L，(±s)]
mPCN组	50	34	16	50±10	23.3±2.2	3(6)	7(14)	10(20)	3.30±0.93	1130±250	117±68	138±14
eSMP组	50	32	18	50±9	23.4±2.4	3(6)	6(12)	10(20)	3.30±0.87	1118±240	118±81	136±13
统计值		χ²=0.178		t=0.182	t=0.367	χ²=0.000	χ²=0.088	χ²=0.000	t=0.044	t=0.241	t=0.055	t=0.506
P值		0.673		0.856	0.714	1.000	0.766	1.000	0.965	0.810	0.956	0.614

表1 mPCNL对比eSMP治疗2～5 cm肾结石患者一般资料

组别	例数	性别(例)		年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	糖尿病[例，(%)]	高血压[例，(%)]	尿路感染[例，(%)]	结石最大径[cm，(±s)]	结石CT值[Hu，(±s)]	血肌酐[μmol/L，(±s)]	血红蛋白[g/L，(±s)]
组别	例数	男	女	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	糖尿病[例，(%)]	高血压[例，(%)]	尿路感染[例，(%)]	结石最大径[cm，(±s)]	结石CT值[Hu，(±s)]	血肌酐[μmol/L，(±s)]	血红蛋白[g/L，(±s)]
mPCN组	50	34	16	50±10	23.3±2.2	3(6)	7(14)	10(20)	3.30±0.93	1130±250	117±68	138±14
eSMP组	50	32	18	50±9	23.4±2.4	3(6)	6(12)	10(20)	3.30±0.87	1118±240	118±81	136±13
统计值		χ²=0.178		t=0.182	t=0.367	χ²=0.000	χ²=0.088	χ²=0.000	t=0.044	t=0.241	t=0.055	t=0.506
P值		0.673		0.856	0.714	1.000	0.766	1.000	0.965	0.810	0.956	0.614

表2 mPCNL对比eSMP治疗2～5 cm肾结石结果

组别	例数	通道数量[例，(%)]			碎石时间[min，(±s)]	结石体积[mm³，(±s)]	取石速度[mm³/h，(±s)]	手术时间[min，(±s)]	术后血肌酐[μmol/L，(±s)]
组别	例数	单通道	双通道	三通道及以上	碎石时间[min，(±s)]	结石体积[mm³，(±s)]	取石速度[mm³/h，(±s)]	手术时间[min，(±s)]	术后血肌酐[μmol/L，(±s)]
mPCNL组	50	35(70.0)	9(18.0)	6(12.0)	50±20	8.12±3.32	9.78±1.23	67±19	126±667
eSMP组	50	40(80.0)	6(12.0)	4(8.0)	35±14	7.95±3.11	13.66±1.17	52±14	122±69
统计值		χ²=1.333			4.314	0.271	16.150	4.429	0.295
P值		0.513			<0.001	0.787	<0.001	<0.001	0.768
组别	术后血红蛋白[g/L，(±s)]	血红蛋白下降[g/L，(±s)]	基础肾盂内压[mmHg，(±s)]	术中肾盂内压[mmHg，(±s)]	肾盂内压升高[mmHg，(±s)]	肾盂内压>30 mmHg时间[s，(±s)]	结石清除率(%)	术后住院时间[d，(±s)]
mPCNL组	120.5±16.7	17.1±6.8	9.10±1.43	17.88±3.28	8.78±3.20	23.2±16.6	43(86%)	2.98±0.87
eSMP组	122.2±15.8	14.0±7.5	9.06±1.62	12.01±2.45	3.23±3.42	3.8±4.3	45(90%)	2.60±0.78
统计值	t=0.529	t=2.182	t=0.131	t=10.140	t=8.389	t=8.012	χ²=0.379	t=2.298
P值	0.598	0.032	0.896	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.538	<0.001
组别	并发症[例，(%)]			结石成分[例，(%)]
组别	发热	脓毒症	输血	草酸钙	磷酸镁铵	碳酸磷灰石	尿酸	胱氨酸
mPCNL组	6(12)	3(6)	1(2)	34(68)	1(2)	7(14)	7(14)	1(2)
eSMP组	3(6)	1(2)	1(2)	32(64)	2(4)	7(14)	9(18)	0(0)
统计值	χ²=1.099	χ²=1.042	χ²=0.000	χ²=1.644
P值	0.295	0.307	1.000	0.801

表2 mPCNL对比eSMP治疗2～5 cm肾结石结果

组别	例数	通道数量[例，(%)]			碎石时间[min，(±s)]	结石体积[mm³，(±s)]	取石速度[mm³/h，(±s)]	手术时间[min，(±s)]	术后血肌酐[μmol/L，(±s)]
组别	例数	单通道	双通道	三通道及以上	碎石时间[min，(±s)]	结石体积[mm³，(±s)]	取石速度[mm³/h，(±s)]	手术时间[min，(±s)]	术后血肌酐[μmol/L，(±s)]
mPCNL组	50	35(70.0)	9(18.0)	6(12.0)	50±20	8.12±3.32	9.78±1.23	67±19	126±667
eSMP组	50	40(80.0)	6(12.0)	4(8.0)	35±14	7.95±3.11	13.66±1.17	52±14	122±69
统计值		χ²=1.333			4.314	0.271	16.150	4.429	0.295
P值		0.513			<0.001	0.787	<0.001	<0.001	0.768
组别	术后血红蛋白[g/L，(±s)]	血红蛋白下降[g/L，(±s)]	基础肾盂内压[mmHg，(±s)]	术中肾盂内压[mmHg，(±s)]	肾盂内压升高[mmHg，(±s)]	肾盂内压>30 mmHg时间[s，(±s)]	结石清除率(%)	术后住院时间[d，(±s)]
mPCNL组	120.5±16.7	17.1±6.8	9.10±1.43	17.88±3.28	8.78±3.20	23.2±16.6	43(86%)	2.98±0.87
eSMP组	122.2±15.8	14.0±7.5	9.06±1.62	12.01±2.45	3.23±3.42	3.8±4.3	45(90%)	2.60±0.78
统计值	t=0.529	t=2.182	t=0.131	t=10.140	t=8.389	t=8.012	χ²=0.379	t=2.298
P值	0.598	0.032	0.896	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.538	<0.001
组别	并发症[例，(%)]			结石成分[例，(%)]
组别	发热	脓毒症	输血	草酸钙	磷酸镁铵	碳酸磷灰石	尿酸	胱氨酸
mPCNL组	6(12)	3(6)	1(2)	34(68)	1(2)	7(14)	7(14)	1(2)
eSMP组	3(6)	1(2)	1(2)	32(64)	2(4)	7(14)	9(18)	0(0)
统计值	χ²=1.099	χ²=1.042	χ²=0.000	χ²=1.644
P值	0.295	0.307	1.000	0.801

[1]	Ganpule AP, Shah DH, Desai MR. Postpercutaneous nephrolithotomy bleeding: aetiology and management[J]. Curr Opin Urol, 2014, 24(2): 189-194.
[2]	Un S, Cakir V, Kara C, et al. Risk factors for hemorrhage requiring embolization after percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Can Urol Assoc J, 2015, 9(9-10): E594-8.
[3]	Amri M, Naouar S, Khalifa BB, et al. Predictive factors of bleeding and fever after percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Tunis Med，2019, 97(5): 667-674.
[4]	Zeng G, Mai Z, Zhao Z, et al. Treatment of upper urinary calculi with Chinese minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single-center experience with 12,482 consecutive patients over 20 years[J]. Urolithiasis, 2013, 41(3): 225-229.
[5]	Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaler WL, et al. Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with pelvic and calyceal stones[J]. Eur Urol, 2001, 40(6): 619-624.
[6]	Desai J, Zeng G, Zhao Z, et al. A novel technique of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: introduction and an initial experience for treatment of upper urinary calculi less than 2 cm[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2013: 490793.
[7]	Zeng G, Wan S, Zhao Z, et al. Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation[J]. BJU Int, 2016, 117(4): 655-661.
[8]	Ganpule AP, Bhattu AS, Desai M. PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of Microperc, Miniperc, and Ultraminiperc[J]. World J Urol, 2015, 33(2): 235-240.
[9]	Zhao Z, Tuerxu A, Liu Y, et al. Super-mini PCNL (SMP): Material, indications, technique, advantages and results[J]. Arch Esp Urol, 2017, 70(1): 211-216.
[10]	Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu K,et al. Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to high renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever?[J]. J Endourol, 2008, 22(9): 2147-2151.
[11]	Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)[J]. JAMA, 2016, 315: 801.
[12]	El-Nahas AR, Shokeir AA, El-Assmy AM, et al. Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy extensive hemorrhage: a study of risk factors[J]. J Urol, 2007, 177(2): 576-579.
[13]	Du N, Ma JQ, Luo JJ, et al. The efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial embolization to treat renal hemorrhage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2019, 2019: 6265183.
[14]	Yang H, Weng G, Yao X, et al. Arterial injury during percutaneous nephrostomy: angiography findings from an isolated porcine kidney model[J]. J Urol, 2015, 12(6): 2396-2399.
[15]	Kamphuis GM, Baard J, Westendarp M, et al. Lessons learned from the CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study[J]. World J Urol, 2015, 33(2): 223-233.
[16]	Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu W, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with multiple mini tracts in a single session in treating staghorn calculi[J]. Urol Res, 2011, 39((2): 117-122.

[1]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	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.
[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]	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.
[6]	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.
[7]	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.
[8]	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.
[9]	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.
[10]	张毅, 苟成仁, 郭振宇, 郑进, 蒋旭东. 经皮肾镜术中损伤肾静脉导致造瘘管异位至腔静脉内一例报告（附专家点评）[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 90-92.
[11]	张飞, 许陈祥, 邵涛, 王伟, 周红庆. 二期局麻下应用膀胱软镜处理复杂性肾结石经皮肾镜术后残石的研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 69-73.
[12]	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/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 581-586.
[13]	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/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 587-592.
[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/OL]. 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/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 798-803.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Enhanced SMP (eSMP) technique: low renal pelvic pressure and high lithotripsy efficiency

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Enhanced SMP (eSMP) technique: low renal pelvic pressure and high lithotripsy efficiency