Clinical study of prevention of stone migration by guide wire during ureteroscopic lithotripsy

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2021.06.011

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of guide wire (with built-in wire in double J tube) in preventing the migration of stones during ureteroscopic treatment of the middle and lower ureteral stones.

Methods

Clinical data of 125 patients with the middle and lower ureteral stones receiving ureteroscopic holmium laser treatment in Central War Zone General Hospital from January 2016 to May 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, guide wires were retained during lithotripsy in 69 cases (guide wire group), and no auxiliary lithotripsy device was employed in the remaining 56 patients (no guide wire group). The operation time, stone removal rate, postoperative complications and hospitalization expenses were statistically compared between the two groups.

Results

No postoperative complications, such as ureteral injury and severe infection occurred. The success rate of lithotripsy was 100% in the guide wire group, significantly higher than that in the no guide wire group 93% (P<0.05). The average operation time in the no guide wire group was (26.3±14.7) min, which did not significantly less than the guide wire group (25.2±12.8) min (P>0.05). There was no difference in operation cost between the two group.

Conclusion

Application of guide wire can effectively prevent the migration of ureteral stones during ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for the middle and lower ureteral stones. Moreover, it has the advantages of high stone removal rate, high safety, few postoperative complications and no additional expenses.

Key words: Ureteroscopy, Ureteral stone, Safety guide wire, Stone migration

Wei Liu, Tiejun Pan, Ying Peng, Jiarong Yang, Hongzhe Tian, Ming Ma. Clinical study of prevention of stone migration by guide wire during ureteroscopic lithotripsy[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(06): 497-501.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2021.06.011

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2021/V15/I06/497

Figures/Tables 3

References 16

[4]	Torricelli FCM, Monga M, Marchini GS, et al. Semi-rigid ureteroscopic 1ithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Int Braz J Urol, 2016, 42(4): 645-654.
[5]	金鑫, 周鹏, 赵文超, 等. 输尿管镜联合封堵取石导管与输尿管软镜治疗输尿管上段结石的疗效比较[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2017, 25(3): 188-189.
[6]	Wang Y, Zhong B, Yang X, et al.Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impact edureteral stones:a randomized controlled trial[J]. BMC Urol, 2017, 17(1): 50.
[7]	苏开德, 周建辉, 刘潜, 等. 经输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石的临床分析(附350例报告)[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2012, 16(2): 140-142．
[8]	张英晨, 程玉峰, 丁吉阳, 等. 内置3F输尿管导管在输尿管镜钬激光碎石术中的临床应用[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志, 2018, 33(3), 229-234.
[9]	Chiang BJ, Liao CH, Lin YH. The efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for symptomatic ureteral stones: predictors of treatment failure without the assistance of computed tomography[J].PLo SOne, 2017, 12(9): e0184855.
[10]	Tadeusz K, Daniela G, Robert S,etal. Dual usage of a stone basket: stone capture and retropulsion prevention[J]. Can Urol Assoc J, 2018, 12(8): 280-283.
[11]	辛玉宏, 赵国平, 张彩虹, 等. 输尿管封堵取石导管在输尿管上段结石中的应用 [J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(6): 380-383。
[12]	李丽, 徐勇, 齐士勇, 等. 输尿管镜结石术后防止结石移位策略的研究进展[J]. 天津医药, 2015, 43(7): 822-825．
[13]	马潞林. 泌尿外科微创手术学[M]. 人民卫生出版社, 2013: 341-342.
[14]	刘定益, 俞家顺, 王健, 等. 输尿管镜钬激光治疗输尿管结石1015例疗效分析[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2015, 15(8): 695-698．
[15]	高飞, 罗林. 输尿管镜秋激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石术后发热的危险因素分析[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(2): 91-94.
[16]	Uchiday, TakazawaR,Kitayamas, et al. Predictive risk factors for systemic inflammatory response syndrome following ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy. [J].Urolithiasis, 2017, 46(4): 375-381.
[1]	黄健. 主编. 中国泌尿外科和男科疾病诊断治疗指南手册(2019版)[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2020: 248-249.
[2]	Valentin Z, Patrick B, Dominik A, et al.Surgical management of urolithiasis-a systematic analysis of available guidelines[J].BMC Urol, 2018, 18(1): 25.
[3]	Bhat A, Singh V, Bhat M, et al. Comparison of antegrade percutaneous versus retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper ur e teric calculus for stone clearance,morbidity,and complications[J]. Indian J Urol, 2019, 35(1): 48-53.

组别	例数	性别(例)		BMI（kg/m²）	结石直径[cm，(±s)]	CT值[Hu，(±s)]	结石位置(例)		结石侧别(例)		积水情况(例)
组别	例数	男	女	BMI（kg/m²）	结石直径[cm，(±s)]	CT值[Hu，(±s)]	中段	下段	左	右	轻	中	重
安全导丝组	69	40	29	23.5±3.9	1.2±0.3	898±243	41	28	38	31	27	39	3
非安全导丝组	56	33	23	24.1±4.0	1.1+0.4	943±304	30	26	36	20	21	30	5
统计值		χ²=0.012		t=0.846	t=0.160	t=0.920	χ²=0.431		χ²=1.086		Z=1.084
P值		0.914		0.399	0.113	0.359	0.587		0.297		0.582

组别	例数	性别(例)		BMI（kg/m²）	结石直径[cm，(±s)]	CT值[Hu，(±s)]	结石位置(例)		结石侧别(例)		积水情况(例)
组别	例数	男	女	BMI（kg/m²）	结石直径[cm，(±s)]	CT值[Hu，(±s)]	中段	下段	左	右	轻	中	重
安全导丝组	69	40	29	23.5±3.9	1.2±0.3	898±243	41	28	38	31	27	39	3
非安全导丝组	56	33	23	24.1±4.0	1.1+0.4	943±304	30	26	36	20	21	30	5
统计值		χ²=0.012		t=0.846	t=0.160	t=0.920	χ²=0.431		χ²=1.086		Z=1.084
P值		0.914		0.399	0.113	0.359	0.587		0.297		0.582

组别	例数	手术时间[min，(±s)]	手术费用[元，(±s)]	结石清除率
安全导丝组	69	25.2±12.8	12 126±1 013	100%
非安全导丝组	56	26.3±14.7	11 856±1 547	093%
统计值		t=0.447	t=1.173	-
P值		0.656	0.243	0.038

组别	例数	手术时间[min，(±s)]	手术费用[元，(±s)]	结石清除率
安全导丝组	69	25.2±12.8	12 126±1 013	100%
非安全导丝组	56	26.3±14.7	11 856±1 547	093%
统计值		t=0.447	t=1.173	-
P值		0.656	0.243	0.038

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export