Application of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with negative pressure suction in one channel

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2022.03.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the safety and efficacy of negative pressure suction in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Methods

The data of all patients were diagnosed with renal stones between January, 2018 and November, 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. All patients were divided into two groups. The experimental group included 56 patients and the control group included 55 patients. The experimental group was operated by percutaneous nephrolithotomy with negative pressure suction and the control was done by routine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Operative time, stone-free rate, renal pelvis pressure, complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

The renal pelvis pressure and operate time in the experimental group are less than those in the control group (P<0.05). There are no difference between two groups in the stone-free rate, blood loss volume the rate of blood loss (P>0.05). The rate of fever and total complications, the level of PCT and CRP in the experimental is less than the control group.

Conclusions

It is safe and effective that the negative pressure is used in the percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Key words: Renal stone, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Negative pressure suction

Haili Li, Jirui Niu. Application of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with negative pressure suction in one channel[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(03): 228-230.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2022.03.008

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V16/I03/228

Figures/Tables 3

References 15

[1]	Ghali F, Dagrosa LM, Moses RA, et al. Changing incidence of factitious renal stone disease[J]. Clin Nephrol, 2018, 90(2):102-105.
[2]	Xun Y, Wang Q, Hu H, et al. Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis[J]. BMC Urol, 2017, 17(1): 102.
[3]	Liu X, Huang G, Zhong R, et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy under regional versus general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Urol Int, 2018, 101(2): 132-142.
[4]	Jones P, Aboumarzouk OM, Rai BP, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for stones in solitary kidney: evidence from a systematic review[J]. Urology, 2017, 103: 12-18.
[5]	He Z, Tang F, Lei H, et al. Risk factors for systemic inflammatory response syndrome after percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Prog Urol, 2018, 28(12): 582-587.
[6]	王效强，张晓静，徐月秀, 等. 负压吸引在微创经皮肾镜钬激光碎石术中的应用研究[J/CD]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2014, 7(6): 482-484.
[7]	陈云鹏，刘堂兵，邓建平. 血红蛋白的动态变化评估手术患者失血量的临床应用[J]. 临床血液学杂志(输血与检验), 2015, 28(1): 123-125.
[8]	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/CD].中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(4): 255-258.
[9]	Rivera M, Viers B, Cockerill P, et al. Pre- and postoperative predictors of infection-related complications in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. J Endourol, 2016, 30(9): 982-986.
[10]	Gutierrez J, Smith A, Geavlete P, et al. Urinary tract infections and post-operative fever in percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. World J Urol, 2013, 31(5):1135-1140.
[11]	Singh I, Shah S, Gupta S, et al. Efficacy of intraoperative renal stone culture in predicting postpercutaneous nephrolithotomy urosepsis/systemic inflammatory response syndrome: a prospective analytical study with review of literature[J]. J Endourol, 2019, 33(2): 84-92.
[12]	Draga RO, Kok ET, Sorel MR, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: factors associated with fever after the first postoperative day and systemic inflammatory response syndrome[J]. J Endourol, 2009, 23(6): 921-927.
[13]	龙兆麟，黄韬，廖春贤. 标准通道与微创经皮肾镜取石术在不同肾盂压力下治疗鹿角形肾结石比较[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2018, 34(13): 2217-2220.
[14]	张宝鹏，斯郎江村，牛吉瑞.单通道经皮肾镜取石术对西藏地区儿童肾结石的疗效[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2019, 24(9): 722-724.
[15]	梁健，李逊，徐桂彬，赖德辉，万肖蓬，苏郑明，袁耀基，徐煜宇，黄晨，殷羽飞，刘兴，盛明. 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/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(6): 400-404.

组别	例数	性别(例)		BMI(kg/m²)	年龄(岁)	结石直径(mm)
组别	例数	男	女	BMI(kg/m²)	年龄(岁)	结石直径(mm)
负压组	56	33	23	26.9±2.1	51.9±12.9	30.1±2.9
常压组	55	34	21	26.2±2.0	53.2±14.6	29.1±2.7
统计值		χ²=0.097		t=1.942	t=0.473	t=1.812
P值		0.756		0.055	0.637	0.073

组别	例数	性别(例)		BMI(kg/m²)	年龄(岁)	结石直径(mm)
组别	例数	男	女	BMI(kg/m²)	年龄(岁)	结石直径(mm)
负压组	56	33	23	26.9±2.1	51.9±12.9	30.1±2.9
常压组	55	34	21	26.2±2.0	53.2±14.6	29.1±2.7
统计值		χ²=0.097		t=1.942	t=0.473	t=1.812
P值		0.756		0.055	0.637	0.073

组别	并发症			清石率[例(%)]	出血量[ml，(±s)]	手术时间[min，(±s)]	肾盂压力[mmHg，(±s)]	PCT[ng/ml，(±s)]	CRP[mg/L，(±s)]
组别	发热(例)	术后出血(例)	总并发症(例)	清石率[例(%)]	出血量[ml，(±s)]	手术时间[min，(±s)]	肾盂压力[mmHg，(±s)]	PCT[ng/ml，(±s)]	CRP[mg/L，(±s)]
负压组	06	2	08	54(96.4)	83.0±21.6	41±6	09.8±2.5	0.46±0.24	11.5±2.80
常压组	15	2	17	52(94.5)	85.6±18.7	51±6	17.9±2.8	3.26±2.62	54.4±34.4
统计值	χ²=4.960	χ²=0.000	χ²=4.394	χ²=0.229	t=0.678	t=9.258	t=16.874	t=7.696	t=9.297
P值	0.026	0.985	0.036	0.632	0.499	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	并发症			清石率[例(%)]	出血量[ml，(±s)]	手术时间[min，(±s)]	肾盂压力[mmHg，(±s)]	PCT[ng/ml，(±s)]	CRP[mg/L，(±s)]
组别	发热(例)	术后出血(例)	总并发症(例)	清石率[例(%)]	出血量[ml，(±s)]	手术时间[min，(±s)]	肾盂压力[mmHg，(±s)]	PCT[ng/ml，(±s)]	CRP[mg/L，(±s)]
负压组	06	2	08	54(96.4)	83.0±21.6	41±6	09.8±2.5	0.46±0.24	11.5±2.80
常压组	15	2	17	52(94.5)	85.6±18.7	51±6	17.9±2.8	3.26±2.62	54.4±34.4
统计值	χ²=4.960	χ²=0.000	χ²=4.394	χ²=0.229	t=0.678	t=9.258	t=16.874	t=7.696	t=9.297
P值	0.026	0.985	0.036	0.632	0.499	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export