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) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (03) : 235 -238. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2022.03.010

临床研究

局麻下部分无管化微创经皮肾镜的临床疗效
赵小峰1, 刘明1, 蒋元文1, 陆敬义1,(), 苏斌杰1, 陈枭1   
  1. 1. 834000 新疆,克拉玛依市中心医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2021-03-01 出版日期:2022-06-01
  • 通信作者: 陆敬义
  • 基金资助:
    新疆维吾尔自治区区域协同创新专项项目(2018E01006); 新疆维吾尔自治区克拉玛依市中心医院院级2017年度青科科研计划项目(QK2017-7)

Analysis of clinical results of tubeless-minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotripsy with local anesthesia

Xiaofeng Zhao1, Ming Liu1, Yuanwen Jiang1, Jingyi Lu1,(), Binjie Su1, Xiao Chen1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Karamay Central Hospital of Xinjiang, Xinjiang 834000, China
  • Received:2021-03-01 Published:2022-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Jingyi Lu
引用本文:

赵小峰, 刘明, 蒋元文, 陆敬义, 苏斌杰, 陈枭. 局麻下部分无管化微创经皮肾镜的临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 235-238.

Xiaofeng Zhao, Ming Liu, Yuanwen Jiang, Jingyi Lu, Binjie Su, Xiao Chen. Analysis of clinical results of tubeless-minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotripsy with local anesthesia[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(03): 235-238.

目的

比较局麻下部分无管化微创经皮肾镜碎石取石术(PCNL)与普通MPCNL的临床结果,探讨局麻无管化MPCNL的安全性和临床疗效。

方法

回顾性分析我院2019年1月至2019年11月行局麻PCNL患者,局麻无管化MPCNL组的患者68例,局麻普通MPCNL组患者67例。比较两组患者的一般资料。

结果

两组患者临床资料具有可比性,无管化组术后平均住院时间为3.15 d,有管化组为6.48 d(P<0.01);术后6 h VAS评分无管化组为4 h,有管化组为6.24(P<0.01);术后第l天VAS评分无管化组为2.50,有管化组为3.84(P<0.01);两组患者在手术时间、穿刺位置、术后血红蛋白下降率、出院当天VAS评分、术后发热、结石清除率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

局麻下行PCNL术简单安全有效,值得临床推广运用。无管化MPCNL治疗肾结石可减轻患者术后疼痛不适,缩短住院时间。

Objective

To compare the clinical results of partially tubeless minimally invasive nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) and common MPCNL under local anesthesia, and to explore the safety and clinical efficacy of tubeless MPCNL under local anesthesia.

Methods

From January 2019 to November 2019, 68 patients who underwent PCNL with local anesthesia and 68 patients who underwent MPCNL with local anesthesia and 67 patients who underwent MPCNL with local anesthesia were retrospectively analyzed. The general data of the patients in the two groups were compared.

Results

The clinical data of the two groups were comparable. The average postoperative hospital stay was 3.15 d and 6.48 d in the non-tubular group (P<0.01); the VAS score at 6 h after operation was 4 h and 6.24 h in the tubular group (P<0.01); the VAS score at 1 day after operation was 2.50 and 3.84 in the tubular group (P<0.01); there was no significant difference in the operation time, puncture site, postoperative hemoglobin decrease rate, VAS score on the day of discharge, postoperative fever and stone clearance rate between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

PCNL under local anesthesia is simple, safe and effective, which is worthy of clinical application. Uncanalized MPCNL for the treatment of renal calculi can reduce postoperative pain and discomfort and shorten hospital stay.

表1 两组局麻下行PCNL患者的临床资料比较
表2 两组局麻下行PCNL患者术中及术后指标比较
[1]
Ziemba JB, Matlaga BR. Guideline of guidelines: kidney stones [J]. BJU Int, 2015, 116(2): 184-189.
[2]
Moosanejad N, Firouzian A, Hashemi SA, et al. Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial [J]. Braz J Med Biol Res, 2016, 49(4): 4878-4785.
[3]
Kirac M, Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF, et al. The efficacy of bupivacaine infiltration on the nephrostomy tract in tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study [J]. Urology, 2013, 82(3): 526-531.
[4]
Gonulalan U, Cicek T, Istanbulluoglu O, et al. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is effective and safe in short- and long-term urinary drainage [J]. Urolithiasis, 2013, 41(4): 341-346.
[5]
Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Akin S, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general versus combined spinal-epidural anesthesia [J]. J Endourol, 2009, 23(11): 1835-1838.
[6]
Singh V, Sinha RJ, Sankhwar SN, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing percutaneous nephrolithotomy under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general anesthesia [J]. Urol Int, 2011, 87(3): 293-298.
[7]
郭震华,那彦群. 实用泌尿外科学[M]. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2013: 188
[8]
Kehlet H, Dahl JB. Anaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperative recovery [J]. Lancet, 2003, 362(9399): 1921-1928.
[9]
Ecke TH, Barski D, Weingart G, et al. Presentation of a method at the Exploration Stage according to IDEAL: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) under local infiltrative anesthesia is a feasible and effective method - retrospective analysis of 439 patients [J]. Int J Med Sci, 2017, 14(4): 302-309.
[10]
丘捷文,黄小佳,文博, 等. 腰硬联合麻醉与局麻用于经皮肾镜取石术的比较 [J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2015, 9(3): 33-35.
[11]
Giannakopoulos S, Giannopoulos S, Gardikis S, et al. Second-look flexible nephroscopy combined with holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy under local anesthesia: a prospective study [J]. Urology, 2017, 99(3) :27-32.
[12]
Tangpaitoon T, Nisoog C, Lojanapiwat B. Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia [J]. Int Braz J Urol, 2012, 38(4): 504-511.
[13]
Sourial MW, Francois N, Box GN, et al. Supracostal access tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: minimizing complications [J]. World J Urol, 2019, 37(7):1429-1433.
[14]
Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, et al. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery [J]. J Urol, 1997, 157(5): 1578-1582.
[15]
Tirtayasa PMW, Yuri P, Birowo P, et al. Safety of tubeless or totally tubeless drainage and nephrostomy tube as a drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comprehensive review [J]. Asian J Surg, 2017, 40(6): 419-423.
[16]
Shen P, Liu Y, Wang J. Nephrostomy tube-free versus nephrostomy tube for renal drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Urol Int, 2012, 88(3): 298-306.
[17]
Zhong Q, Zheng C, Mo J, et al. Total tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis [J]. J Endourol, 2013, 27(4): 420-426.
[18]
Choi SW, Kim KS, Kim JH, et al. Totally tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: analysis of clinical outcomes and cost [J]. J Endourol, 2014, 28(12): 1487-1494.
[19]
Kokorovic A, Wilson JW, Beiko D. Outpatient bilateral supracostal tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi [J]. Can Urol Assoc J, 2014, 8(3-4): 273-275.
[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] 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.
[4] 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.
[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] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[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] 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/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 601-604.
[12] 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/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 616-620.
[13] 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/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 653-656.
[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