口腔黏膜输尿管成形术与狭窄段切除吻合术治疗输尿管狭窄的疗效比较

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2024.03.010

目的

比较口腔黏膜输尿管成形术与传统狭窄段切除吻合术治疗输尿管狭窄的效果。

方法

回顾性分析2019年7月至2022年7月安徽医科大学第二附属医院收治的40例输尿管狭窄患者的临床资料，根据手术方式分为观察组18例（腹腔镜下口腔黏膜输尿管成形术）与对照组22例（腹腔镜下输尿管狭窄段切除吻合术）。两组术后3个月及6个月通过影像学检查评估手术疗效。

结果

所有手术均顺利完成，无明显并发症。观察组手术时间（198±40）min，术中出血量40.0（40.0，50.0）ml高于对照组[（170±42）min和20.0（10.0，50.0）ml]（P<0.05）；术后两组肾积水程度均改善明显，观察组术后3个月、6个月肾盂分离度减少优于对照组，观察组治愈率66.67%、有效率94.44%，高于对照组54.55%和86.36%，但差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。

结论

两种手术方式治疗输尿管狭窄段长度为1.0～2.5 cm的病例均具有良好效果，口腔黏膜输尿管成形术由于术中吻合张力小，可能更适用于长段输尿管狭窄。

关键词: 输尿管狭窄, 医源性损伤, 口腔黏膜补片, 腹腔镜, 输尿管成形术

Objective

To compare the effect of oral mucosal ureteroplasty and traditional stricture resection and anastomosis in the treatment of ureteral stricture.

Methods

The clinical data of 40 patients with ureteral stricture admitted to the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from July 2019 to July 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the surgical methods, 18 patients were divided into the observation group (laparoscopic oral mucosal ureteroplasty) and 22 patients in the control group (laparoscopic resection and anastomosis of ureteral stricture). Both groups were evaluated by imaging examination at 3 and 6 months after operation.

Results

All operations were successfully completed without obvious complications. The surgical time [(198±40) min] and intraoperative bleeding volume [40.0(40.0, 50.0) ml] in the observation group were higher than those in the control group [(170±42) min and 20.0 (10.0, 50.0) ml] (P<0.05). The degree of hydronephrosis in both groups improved significantly after surgery. The separation of renal pelvis in the study group decreased 3 months and 6 months after surgery, which was better than that in the control group, the cure rate 66.67% and effective rate 94.44% of the observation group were higher than those of the control group (54.55% and 86.36%), but there were no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Both surgical methods have shown good results in treating cases with a narrow segment length of 1.0-2.5 cm. Oral mucosal ureteroplasty may be more suitable for long segment ureteral stenosis due to its low intraoperative anastomotic tension.

Key words: Ureteral sricture, Iatrogenic injury, Oral mucosa, Laparoscopy, Ureteroplasty

表1 两组输尿管狭窄患者一般资料比较

组别	例数	性别(例)		年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	狭窄段长度[cm，M(Q)]	术前肾盂分离度[mm，M(Q)]	术前尿白细胞[×10⁹/L，M(Q)]
组别	例数	男	女	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	狭窄段长度[cm，M(Q)]	术前肾盂分离度[mm，M(Q)]	术前尿白细胞[×10⁹/L，M(Q)]
观察组	18	8	10	46±10	25±3	2.00(2.00，2.50)	35.9(31.1，41.1)	25.1(8.5，35.0)
对照组	22	15	7	46±18	24±4	2.00(1.50，2.13)	31.7(23.3，44.1)	15.2(8.9，22.6)
统计值		χ²=2.283		t=-0.071	t=-0.708	Z=-1.640	Z=-0.585	Z=-1.387
P值		0.131		0.944	0.483	0.101	0.559	0.166

表1 两组输尿管狭窄患者一般资料比较

组别	例数	性别(例)		年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	狭窄段长度[cm，M(Q)]	术前肾盂分离度[mm，M(Q)]	术前尿白细胞[×10⁹/L，M(Q)]
组别	例数	男	女	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	狭窄段长度[cm，M(Q)]	术前肾盂分离度[mm，M(Q)]	术前尿白细胞[×10⁹/L，M(Q)]
观察组	18	8	10	46±10	25±3	2.00(2.00，2.50)	35.9(31.1，41.1)	25.1(8.5，35.0)
对照组	22	15	7	46±18	24±4	2.00(1.50，2.13)	31.7(23.3，44.1)	15.2(8.9，22.6)
统计值		χ²=2.283		t=-0.071	t=-0.708	Z=-1.640	Z=-0.585	Z=-1.387
P值		0.131		0.944	0.483	0.101	0.559	0.166

图1 腹腔镜下口腔黏膜输尿管成形术术中关键步骤注：a为游离出输尿管狭窄段；b为纵行切开狭窄段输尿管；c为修剪口腔黏膜；d为吻合口腔黏膜与输尿管黏膜

表2 两组输尿管狭窄患者围手术期资料比较

组别	例数	手术时间[min，(±s)]	术中出血量[ml，M(Q)]	术后留置导尿管时间[d，M(Q)]	术后留置引流管时间[d，M(Q)]
观察组	18	198±40	40.0(40.0，50.0)	6.0(4.8，8.0)	3.0(2.8，4.0)
对照组	22	170±42	20.0(10.0，50.0)	6.0(5.0，7.5)	3.0(2.0，3.3)
统计值		t=-2.140	Z=-2.812	Z=-0.291	Z=-1.334
P值		0.039	0.005	0.778	0.182

表2 两组输尿管狭窄患者围手术期资料比较

组别	例数	手术时间[min，(±s)]	术中出血量[ml，M(Q)]	术后留置导尿管时间[d，M(Q)]	术后留置引流管时间[d，M(Q)]
观察组	18	198±40	40.0(40.0，50.0)	6.0(4.8，8.0)	3.0(2.8，4.0)
对照组	22	170±42	20.0(10.0，50.0)	6.0(5.0，7.5)	3.0(2.0，3.3)
统计值		t=-2.140	Z=-2.812	Z=-0.291	Z=-1.334
P值		0.039	0.005	0.778	0.182

表3 两组输尿管狭窄患者术后疗效比较

组别	例数	术后肾盂分离度[mm，M(Q)]		术后肾盂分离度下降值[mm，M(Q)]		治愈率[例(%)]	缓解率[例(%)]	无效率[例(%)]	有效率[例(%)]
组别	例数	3个月	6个月	3个月	6个月	治愈率[例(%)]	缓解率[例(%)]	无效率[例(%)]	有效率[例(%)]
观察组	18	12.3(9.0，19.4)	10.2(8.0，15.4)	22.2(17.1，28.6)	25.3(17.0，30.3)	12(66.67)	5(27.77)	1(5.56)	17(94.44)
对照组	22	16.0(11.0，22.2)	11.8(8.2，18.8)	15.1(6.9，26.7)0	19.2(9.7，33.5)0	12(54.55)	7(31.81)	3(13.64)	19(86.36)
统计值		Z=-1.210	Z=-0.872	Z=-1.550	Z=-1.020	-	-	-	χ²=0.101
P值		0.226	0.383	0.121	0.308	-	-	-	0.751

表3 两组输尿管狭窄患者术后疗效比较

组别	例数	术后肾盂分离度[mm，M(Q)]		术后肾盂分离度下降值[mm，M(Q)]		治愈率[例(%)]	缓解率[例(%)]	无效率[例(%)]	有效率[例(%)]
组别	例数	3个月	6个月	3个月	6个月	治愈率[例(%)]	缓解率[例(%)]	无效率[例(%)]	有效率[例(%)]
观察组	18	12.3(9.0，19.4)	10.2(8.0，15.4)	22.2(17.1，28.6)	25.3(17.0，30.3)	12(66.67)	5(27.77)	1(5.56)	17(94.44)
对照组	22	16.0(11.0，22.2)	11.8(8.2，18.8)	15.1(6.9，26.7)0	19.2(9.7，33.5)0	12(54.55)	7(31.81)	3(13.64)	19(86.36)
统计值		Z=-1.210	Z=-0.872	Z=-1.550	Z=-1.020	-	-	-	χ²=0.101
P值		0.226	0.383	0.121	0.308	-	-	-	0.751

[1]	侯长浩, 宋鲁杰, 傅强. 2020年欧洲泌尿外科学会输尿管损伤诊断治疗指南(附解读)[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2020, 25(7): 638-640.
[2]	Ozdemir E, Ozturk U, Celen S, et al. Urinary complications of gynecologic surgery: iatrogenic urinary tract system injuries in obstetrics and gynecology operations[J]. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 38(3): 217-220.
[3]	Ulvik Ø, Harneshaug JR, Gjengstø P. Ureteral strictures following ureteroscopic stone treatment[J]. J Endourol, 2021, 35(7): 985-990.
[4]	Sunaryo PL, May PC, Holt SK, et al. Ureteral strictures following ureteroscopy for kidney stone disease: a population-based assessment[J]. J Urol, 2022, 208(6): 1268-1275.
[5]	Laquerre J. Hydronephrosis: diagnosis, grading, and treatment[J]. Radiol Technol, 2020, 92(2): 135-151.
[6]	Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty[J]. J Urol, 1993, 150(6): 1795-1799.
[7]	Lucas JW, Ghiraldi E, Ellis J, et al. Endoscopic management of ureteral strictures: an update[J]. Curr Urol Rep, 2018, 19(4): 24.
[8]	徐涛, 唐鑫伟, 胡浩. 输尿管狭窄的内镜治疗:现状与未来[J/OL].中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(3): 177-181.
[9]	Zuo W, Gao F, Yuan CW, et al. Trends in upper urinary tract reconstruction surgery over a decade based on a multi-center database[J]. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 2022, 54(4): 692-698.
[10]	Hassan MM andElbakry AM. Lingual mucosal graft as a long segment ureteric replacement: an experimental study in dogs[J]. J Am Sci, 2012, 8(7): 256-261.
[11]	李兵, 徐玉节, 海波, 等. 腹腔镜舌黏膜输尿管成形术修复输尿管上段狭窄的初步临床应用[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志, 2015, 30(10): 869-871.
[12]	Cheng S, Fan S, Wang J, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic ureteroplasty using onlay flap or graft for the management of long proximal or middle ureteral strictures: our experience and strategy[J]. Int Urol Nephrol, 2021, 53(3): 479-488.
[13]	Fan S, Yin L, Yang K, et al. Posteriorly augmented anastomotic ureteroplasty with lingual mucosal onlay grafts for long proximal ureteral strictures: 10 cases of experience[J]. J Endourol, 2021, 35(2): 192-199.
[14]	Abrate A, Gregori A, Simonato A. Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Asian J Urol, 2019, 6(3): 230-241.
[15]	马俊海, 尚攀峰, 岳中瑾. 机器人辅助腹腔镜长段输尿管狭窄重建的进展[J].中国微创外科杂志, 2023, 23(11): 850-853.
[16]	李俊涛, 叶雷, 吴坚坚, 等. 回肠代输尿管术一期修复医源性长段输尿管损伤的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(5): 423-426.
[17]	柴帅帅, 李兵. 口腔黏膜在输尿管狭窄修复重建中的应用[J]. 中国临床新医学, 2021, 14(7): 657-662.
[18]	Campos-Juanatey F, Azueta Etxebarria A, Calleja Hermosa P, et al. Histological comparison of buccal and lingual mucosa grafts for urethroplasty: do they share tissue structures and vascular supply?[J]. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(7): 2064.
[19]	Yang K, Fan S, Li Z, et al. Lingual mucosa graft ureteroplasty for ureteral stricture: a narrative review of the current literature[J]. Ann Palliat Med, 2021, 10(4): 4840-4845.
[20]	Liang C, Wang J, Hai B, et al. Lingual mucosal graft ureteroplasty for long proximal ureteral stricture: 6 years of experience with 41 cases[J]. Eur Urol, 2022, 82(2): 193-200.

[1]	燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2]	母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3]	李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[4]	李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[5]	李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[6]	陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[7]	许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[8]	李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[9]	任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[10]	王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[11]	杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[12]	叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
[13]	郭兵, 王万里, 何凯, 黄汉生. 腹腔镜下肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 143-143.
[14]	李凯, 陈淋, 苏怀东, 向涵, 张伟. 超微创器械在改良单孔腹腔镜巨大肝囊肿开窗引流及胆囊切除中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 144-144.
[15]	魏丽霞, 张安澜, 周宝勇, 李明. 腹腔镜下Ⅲb型肝门部胆管癌根治术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(01): 145-145.

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

Comparison of the therapeutic effect of oral mucosal ureteroplasty and narrow segment resection and anastomosis in the treatment of ureteral stricture

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

Comparison of the therapeutic effect of oral mucosal ureteroplasty and narrow segment resection and anastomosis in the treatment of ureteral stricture