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) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (02) : 140 -143. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2023.02.008

临床研究

负压吸引鞘在微创经皮肾镜碎石取石术中的应用
范翰共1,(), 刘聪1, 洪佳辉1, 林悦悦1, 林斯琪1   
  1. 1. 516600 广东,汕尾逸挥基金医院泌尿外科
  • 收稿日期:2021-09-24 出版日期:2023-04-01
  • 通信作者: 范翰共
  • 基金资助:
    汕尾市科技计划项目(2019C011)

The application of negative pressure suction sheath in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Hangong Fan1,(), Cong Liu1, Jiahui Hong1, Yueyue Lin1, Siqi Lin1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Shanwei Yihui Foundation Hospital, Guangdong 516600, China
  • Received:2021-09-24 Published:2023-04-01
  • Corresponding author: Hangong Fan
引用本文:

范翰共, 刘聪, 洪佳辉, 林悦悦, 林斯琪. 负压吸引鞘在微创经皮肾镜碎石取石术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 140-143.

Hangong Fan, Cong Liu, Jiahui Hong, Yueyue Lin, Siqi Lin. The application of negative pressure suction sheath in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(02): 140-143.

目的

比较负压吸引鞘与普通鞘行微创经皮肾碎石取石术(MPCNL)治疗2~5 cm肾结石的疗效,以验证其安全性及有效性。

方法

自2019年,我科将50例直径2~5 cm肾结石患者随机分为两组,分别采用负压吸引鞘和普通鞘进行18 F通道下的MPCNL。记录术前资料、手术时间、碎石时间、取石体积以及围手术期并发症等,进行统计学分析。

结果

负压吸引鞘与普通鞘两组患者术前资料差异无统计学意义,MPCNL术中分别取出结石(8±3)和(8±4) mm3,差异无统计学意义(P=0.781),但负压吸引鞘组碎石取石时间[(37±16) vs (50±20) min,P=0.016]较普通鞘组显著缩短,单位时间内负压吸引鞘组的碎石取石效率[(13.5±1.0) vs (9.7±1.1)mm3/h,P<0.001]显著高于普通鞘组。负压吸引鞘组的总手术时间[(54±16)vs (67±20)min,P=0.014]较普通鞘组显著缩短。负压吸引鞘组较普通鞘组术后血红蛋白下降量[(14±6) vs (19±8) g/L,P=0.013]少;负压吸引鞘组术后发热率(4% vs 24%,P=0.042)更低。

结论

负压吸引鞘在MPCNL中能够提高碎石取石的效率,缩短手术时间,并减少术中出血及术后发热风险,是一项安全有效的技术。

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of negative pressure suction sheath and peel-away sheath in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) for 2-5 cm renal calculi.

Methods

From 2019, 50 patients with 2-5 cm renal calculi were enrolled into two groups. 18 F percutaneous tract was established, suction sheath and peel-away sheath were used in different groups. Preoperative data, operation time, lithotripsy time, stone removal volume and perioperative complications were recorded and analyzed statistically.

Results

There was no significant difference in preoperative data between the two groups. There was no significant difference in stone removal volume [(8±3) vs (8±4) mm3, P=0.781] during MPCNL, but the time consumed [(37±16) vs (50±20) min, P=0.016] for lithotripsy in the negative pressure suction sheath group was significantly shorter than peel-away sheath group, therefore, the lithotripsy efficiency [(13.5±1.0) vs (9.7±1.14) mm3/h, P<0.001] of the negative pressure suction sheath group was significantly higher than peel-away sheath group. The total operation time [(54±16) vs (67±20) min, P=0.014] in the negative pressure suction sheath group was significantly shorter than that of ordinary sheath group. The decrease of hemoglobin [(14±6) vs (19±8) g/L, P=0.013] in the negative pressure suction sheath group was less than peel-away sheath group. The postoperative fever rate (4% vs 24%, P=0.042) was lower in the negative pressure suction sheath group.

Conclusions

Negative pressure suction sheath in MPCNL can improve the lithotripsy efficiency, shorten the operation time, effectively reduce the blood loss and postoperative fever, which is a safe and effective technique.

表1 普通鞘和负压吸引鞘MPCNL治疗2~5 cm肾结石患者一般资料比较
表2 负压吸引鞘和普通鞘MPCNL治疗2~5 cm肾结石结果比较
[1]
Zeng G, Zhong W, Mazzon G, et al. International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) Guideline on percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Minerva Urol Nephrol, 2022, 74(6): 653-668.
[2]
Zeng G, Zhong W, Pearle M, et al. European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis and International Alliance of Urolithiasis Joint Consensus on percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Eur Urol Focus, 2022, 8(2): 588-597.
[3]
Zeng G, Cai C, Duan X, et al. Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a noninferior modality to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of 20-40 mm renal calculi: a multicenter randomized controlled trial[J]. Eur Urol, 2021, 79(1): 114-121.
[4]
Deng X, Xie D, Huang X, et al. Suctioning flexible ureteroscopy with automatic control of renal pelvic pressure versus mini PCNL for the treatment of 2-3-cm kidney stones in patients with a solitary kidney[J]. Urol Int, 2022, 106(12): 1293-1297.
[5]
杜传策, 宋乐明, 秦文, 等. 有无负压装置微创经皮肾镜取石肾盂内压变化对比研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2010, 4(1): 32-35.
[6]
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.
[7]
习明,郑秋平,华伟,等.负压吸引鞘在斜仰截石位经皮肾镜中的应用[J/OL].中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(4): 4.
[8]
梁健, 李逊, 徐桂彬, 等.经皮肾镜碎石取石术联合负压吸引治疗肾结石的Meta分析[J/OL].中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(6): 400-404.
[9]
Liu Y, Zhu W, Zeng G. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with suction: is this the future? [J]. Curr Opin Urol, 2021, 31(2): 95-101.
[10]
Gadzhiev NK, Obidnyak VM, Gorelov DS, et al. Complications after PCNL: diagnosis and management[J]. Urologiia, 2020, (5): 139-148.
[11]
Wang J, Mi Y, Wu S, et al. Impact factors and an efficient nomogram for predicting the occurrence of sepsis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2020, 2020: 6081768.
[12]
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.
[13]
Tokas T, Tzanaki E, Nagele U, et al. Role of intrarenal pressure in modern day endourology (mini-PCNL and flexible URS): a systematic review of literature[J]. Curr Urol Rep.2021, 22(10): 52.
[14]
闻俊军, 彭林杰, 钟文. 肾盂低压并高效清石的增强版超微经皮肾镜技术[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(2): 108-112.
[15]
Li Z, Wu A, Liu J, et al. Risk factors for hemorrhage requiring embolization after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis[J]. Transl Androl Urol, 2020, 9(2): 210-217.
[16]
Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, et al. Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study[J]. J Endourol, 2004, 18(8): 715-722.
[1] 李建美, 邓静娟, 杨倩. 两种术式联合治疗肝癌合并肝硬化门静脉高压的安全性及随访评价[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 41-44.
[2] 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.
[3] 杨体飞, 杨传虎, 陆振如. 改良无充气经腋窝入路全腔镜下甲状腺手术对喉返神经功能的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 74-77.
[4] 陈垚, 徐伯群, 高志慧. 改良式中间上入路根治术治疗甲状腺癌的有效性安全性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 619-622.
[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] 代格格, 杨丽, 胡媛媛, 周文婷. 手术室综合干预在老年腹股沟疝患者中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 759-763.
[9] 王敏, 蒋家斌, 李茂新. 预警宣教联合个性化疼痛管理对腹股沟疝手术患者的影响[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 764-767.
[10] 戴玮, 江桂林, 车兆平, 张姣, 王星星, 赵海涛. 无缝手术护理在腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术围手术期的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 778-781.
[11] 潘冰, 吕少诚, 赵昕, 李立新, 郎韧, 贺强. 淋巴结清扫数目对远端胆管癌胰十二指肠切除手术疗效的影响[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 608-612.
[12] 崔佳琪, 吴迪, 陈海艳, 周惠敏, 顾元龙, 周光文, 杨军. TACE术后并发肝脓肿的临床诊治分析[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 688-693.
[13] 王小娜, 谭微, 李悦, 姜文艳. 预测性护理对结直肠癌根治术患者围手术期生活质量、情绪及并发症的影响[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 525-529.
[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