切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版)

中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (01) : 67 -71. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2023.01.015

临床研究

不同入路腹腔镜肾盂成形术治疗成人肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻的比较
杜天赐1, 尚攀峰1,†(), 张彪1, 李佳朔1, 罗瑶1, 罗创1, 杨树军1, 王鹏远1, 岳中瑾1   
  1. 1. 730030　甘肃，兰州大学第二医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2021-08-23 出版日期:2023-02-01
  • 通信作者: 尚攀峰
  • 基金资助:
    甘肃省重点研发计划项目(20YF8FA081)

Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with different approaches in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults

Tianci Du1, Panfeng Shang1,†(), Biao Zhang1, Jiashuo Li1, Yao Luo1, Chuang Luo1, Shujun Yang1, Pengyuan Wang1, Zhongjin Yue1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Gansu 730030, China
  • Received:2021-08-23 Published:2023-02-01
  • Corresponding author: Panfeng Shang
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

杜天赐, 尚攀峰, 张彪, 李佳朔, 罗瑶, 罗创, 杨树军, 王鹏远, 岳中瑾. 不同入路腹腔镜肾盂成形术治疗成人肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻的比较[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 67-71.

Tianci Du, Panfeng Shang, Biao Zhang, Jiashuo Li, Yao Luo, Chuang Luo, Shujun Yang, Pengyuan Wang, Zhongjin Yue. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with different approaches in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(01): 67-71.

目的

比较经腹腔和经后腹腔入路腹腔镜肾盂成形术治疗肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻（UPJO）的安全性及疗效。

方法

收集2015年1月至2020年6月在兰州大学第二医院确诊为UPJO并行腹腔镜肾盂成形术且年龄≥18岁患者的临床资料，比较两组患者围术期指标、并发症发生率及手术成功率。

结果

本研究共纳入195例患者，两组患者基线资料差异无统计学意义。两组围术期指标及近期并发症比较：手术时间[190（150，230）min vs 200（174，260）min，P=0.030]、引流管留置天数[5.0（3.0，6.0）d vs 6.0（4.0，8.0）d，P=0.005]、术后住院天数[6.0（5.0，7.0）d vs 8.0（5.0，9.0）d，P=0.006]经腹腔组均短于经后腹腔组，中转开放率经腹腔组低于经后腹腔组[3（3.2%）vs 10（12.5%），P=0.019]；术中出血量、术后特护时间、禁食水时间方面两组差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）；尿漏、泌尿道感染、肠梗阻、高碳酸血症等近期并发症发生率方面两组间差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。长期随访的结果显示，在结石形成、输尿管支架移位、总体并发症发生率及手术成功率方面两组间差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。

结论

对于取得一定腹腔镜手术经验的术者，经腹腔入路腹腔镜肾盂成形术相比经后腹腔入路手术时间短，中转开放率低，引流管留置天数及术后住院天数短，两种入路并发症发生率及手术疗效相当。

关键词: 肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻, 肾盂积水, 肾盂成形术, 腹腔镜
Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).

Methods

Clinical data of patients aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with UPJO and underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the Second Hospital of Lanzhou University from January 2015 to June 2020 were collected. The patients were compared the perioperative indexes, the incidence of complications and the success rate of surgery between the two groups.

Results

A total of 195 patients were included in this study, and the baseline difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. Comparison of perioperative indexes and recent complications showed that the duration of operation [190(150, 230) min vs 200(174, 260) min, P=0.030], the number of days of drainage tube indwention [5.0(3.0, 6.0) d vs 6.0(4.0, 8.0) d,P=0.005] and the number of days of postoperative hospitalization [6.0(5.0,7.0) d vs 8.0(5.0, 9.0) d, P=0.006] in the transperitoneal group were shorter than those in the retroperitoneal space group, the transfer opening rate in transperitoneal group was lower than that in retroperitoneal space group [3(3.2%) vs 10(12.5%), P=0.019]. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative special care time and fasting time between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of urinary leakage, urinary tract infection, intestinal obstruction, hypercapnia and other recent complications between the two groups (P>0.05). Results of long-term follow-up of patients showed that there were no significant difference between the two groups in calculus formation, ureteral stent displacement, overall complication rate and surgical success rate (P>0.05).

Conclusions

For those who have gained some experiences in laparoscopic surgery, compared with retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty, transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty has shorter operation time, lower conversion rate, shorter duration of drainage tube retention and shorter postoperative hospital stay. The incidence of complications and surgical efficacy of the two approaches are similar.

Key words: UPJO, Hydronephrosis, Pyeloplasty, Laparoscopy
表1 两组成人UPJO患者基线资料的比较
组别 例数 年龄[岁，M(P25，P75)] BMI[kg/m2，(±s)] 性别(例) 手术侧别(例) 临床症状(例) 尿素氮水平[mmol/L，M(P25，P75)] 肌酐水平[μmol/L，M(P25，P75)]
男 女 左 右 有 无
腹腔入路组 95 31.0(24.0，44.0) 22.0±3.1 61 34 62 33 88 7 5.3(4.5，6.4) 79.0(71.0，92.0)
后腹腔入路组 80 35.0(28.2，44.0) 22.7±3.8 50 30 49 31 71 9 5.5(4.6，6.5) 77.0(67.0，90.5)
统计值 Z=-1.738 t=1.424 χ2=0.055 χ2=0.302 χ2=0.788 Z=-0.499 Z=-0.626
P值 0.082 0.156 0.815 0.583 0.375 0.618 0.531
组别 合并肾结石(例) 合并输尿管结石(例) 合并异位血管(例) 合并输尿管息肉(例) 肾积水程度(例)
有 无 有 无 有 无 无 无 轻度 中度 重度
腹腔入路组 16 79 9 86 19 76 6 89 6 14 75
后腹腔入路组 9 71 8 72 12 68 4 76 7 18 55
统计值 χ2=1.109 χ2=0.014 χ2=0.745 χ2=0.002 Z=2.386
P值 0.292 0.907 0.388 0.963* 0.303
表2 两组成人UPJO患者围术期指标及近期（<30 d）并发症的比较
组别 例数 手术时间[min，M(P25，P75)] 出血量[ml，M(P25，P75)] 中转开放[例(%)] 特护时间[h，M(P25，P75)] 禁食水时间[h，M(P25，P75)] 引流管留置天数[d，M(P25，P75)]
腹腔入路组 95 190(150，230) 50(30，100) 3(3.2%) 49(43，51) 42(38，49) 5(3，6)
后腹腔入路组 80 200(174，260) 50(30，138) 10(12.5%) 46(42，51) 42(39，46) 6(4，8)
统计值 Z=-2.165 Z=-1.531 χ2=5.512 Z=-1.488 Z=-0.424 Z=-2.840
P值 0.030 0.126 0.019 0.137 0.671 0.005
组别 术后住院天数[d，M(P25，P75)] 尿漏[例(%)] 泌尿道感染[例(%)] 肠梗阻[例(%)] 高碳酸血症[例(%)]
腹腔入路组 6(5，7) 5(5.3) 1(1.1) 2(2.1) 0(0.0)
后腹腔入路组 8(5，9) 6(7.5) 4(5.0) 1(1.3) 1(1.3)
统计值 Z=-2.761 χ2=0.369 χ2=1.223 χ2=0.000 -
P值 0.006 0.544 0.269a 1.000a 0.457b
表3 两组成人UPJO患者术后随访结果的比较[例(%)]
组别 例数 远期（>30 d）并发症 总体并发症 手术结果
结石形成或引起梗阻 输尿管支架移位 成功 失败
腹腔入路组 87 4(4.6) 1(1.1) 10(11.5) 81(93.1) 6(6.9)
后腹腔入路组 76 2(2.1) 0(0.0) 12(15.8) 72(94.7) 4(5.3)
统计值 χ2=0.062 - χ2=0.641 χ2=0.011
P值 0.804a 1.000b 0.423 0.915a
[1]
姜春倩, 郭霜, 李艳萍, 等. 先天性肾盂输尿管连接处梗阻治疗研究进展[J]. 中华实用儿科临床杂志, 2019, 34(6): 478-480.
[2]
Krajewski W, Wojciechowska J, Dembowski J, et al. Hydronephrosis in the course of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: An underestimated problem? Current opinions on the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment [J]. Adv Clin Exp Med, 2017, 26(5): 857-864.
[3]
刘超, 闫动, 张蕾,等. 腹腔镜肾盂成形术治疗婴幼儿输尿管肾盂连接部梗阻性肾积水[J/CD].中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(3): 13-16.
[4]
黄健, 张旭, 周利群, 等.腹腔镜肾盂成型术手术规范专家共识[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2020, 9(6): 361-366.
[5]
Chua ME, Ming JM, Kim JK, et al. Meta-analysis of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty for the management of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction [J]. BJU Int, 2021, 127(6): 687-702.
[6]
Wu Y, Dong Q, Han P, et al. Meta-analysis of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approaches of laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction [J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2012, 22(7): 658-662.
[7]
Shoma AM, El Nahas AR, Bazeed MA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy [J]. J Urol, 2007, 178(5): 2020-2024.
[8]
Singh V, Sinha RJ, Gupta DK, et al. Prospective randomized comparison between transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty and retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction [J]. JSLS, 2014, 18(3): 1-8.
[9]
Zhu H, Shen C, Li X, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach during the learning curve [J]. Urol Int, 2013, 90(2): 130-135.
[10]
Zhang S, Li J, Li C, et al. Evaluation of the clinical value of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants: A single-center experience involving 22 consecutive patients [J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2019, 98(40): 1-5.
[11]
沈宏峰, 朱其聪, 黄尉, 等. 不同入路腹腔镜下肾盂成形术在肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻中的疗效及对胃肠功能的影响[J]. 西部医学, 2019, 31(2): 241-244, 249.
[12]
康延杰, 杨金辉, 吕文伟, 等. 结肠系膜入路与后腹腔入路腹腔镜肾盂成形术治疗小儿肾积水的疗效对比研究[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2021, 26(2): 136-139.
[13]
Liu D, Zhou H, Ma L, et al. Comparison of Laparoscopic Approaches for Dismembered Pyeloplasty in Children With Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Critical Analysis of 11-Year Experiences in a Single Surgeon [J]. Urology, 2017, 101: 50-55.
[14]
Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Ghamdi AMA, et al. A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study [J]. J Robot Surg, 2018, 12(1): 131-137.
[1] 曹迪, 张玉茹. 经腹腔镜生物补片修补直肠癌根治术后盆底疝1例[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 115-116.
[2] 杜晓辉, 崔建新. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术淋巴结清扫范围与策略[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 5-8.
[3] 周岩冰, 刘晓东. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术消化道吻合重建方式的选择[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 9-13.
[4] 张焱辉, 张蛟, 朱志贤. 留置肛管在中低位直肠癌新辅助放化疗后腹腔镜TME术中的临床研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 25-28.
[5] 王春荣, 陈姜, 喻晨. 循Glisson蒂鞘外解剖、Laennec膜入路腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 37-40.
[6] 李晓玉, 江庆, 汤海琴, 罗静枝. 围手术期综合管理对胆总管结石并急性胆管炎患者ERCP +LC术后心肌损伤的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 57-60.
[7] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[8] 逄世江, 黄艳艳, 朱冠烈. 改良π形吻合在腹腔镜全胃切除消化道重建中的安全性和有效性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 66-69.
[9] 李凯, 陈淋, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种U型记忆合金线在经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 15-15.
[10] 唐健雄, 李绍杰. 不断推进中国腹腔镜疝手术规范化[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 591-594.
[11] 田文, 杨晓冬. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术式选择及注意事项[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 595-597.
[12] 李涛, 陈纲, 李世拥. 腹腔镜下右侧腹股沟斜疝修补术（TAPP）[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 598-598.
[13] 易明超, 汪鑫, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种T型记忆金属线在经脐单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 599-599.
[14] 张继新, 胡军红, 谢爽, 武祖印, 张春旭. 经阴道单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术可行性及近期疗效分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 460-465.
[15] 卢艳军, 马健, 白鹏宇, 郭凌宏, 刘海义, 江波, 白文启, 张毅勋. 纳米碳在腹腔镜直肠癌根治术中253组淋巴结清扫的临床效果[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 473-477.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号