标准通道经皮肾镜与微创经皮肾镜碎石后出血发生率比较

Comparison on bleeding incidence of standard channel percutaneous nephrolithotomy and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy lithotripsy

目的比较标准通道经皮肾镜与微创经皮肾镜碎石后出血发生率。方法将我院碎石中心收治96例行碎石术患者分为两组,分别进行标准通道经皮肾镜碎石(标准通道组38例)和微创经皮肾镜碎石(微创组58例),比较两组患者碎石率和出血率。结果标准通道组与微创组结石有效清除率分别为89.5%(34/38)、70.7%(41/58),两者比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);微创组患者术后出血率为12.1%(7/58),低于标准通道组的29.0%(11/38),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);标准通道组及微创组术后平均出血量分别为(151.7±24.3)、(125.3±31.8)mL,前者高于后者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论标准通道经皮肾镜碎石和微创经皮肾镜碎石两种方法均有各自优点,前者碎石有效率较高,但术后出血率及平均出血量高于后者。

Objective To compare the bleeding incidence after standard channel percutaneous renal lens and minimally invasive percutaneous renal mirror lithotripsy.Methods 96 patients with kidney stone,who were selected from our hospital lithotripsy center,and were divided into two groups at random,and performed by the standard channel percutaneous renal mirror（standard channel group,38 cases） and minimally invasive percutaneous renal mirror lithotripsy（minimally invasive group,58 caese） respectively.The lithotripsy rate and bleeding rate of two groups were compared.Results The effective rate of standard channel group and minimally invasive group were 89.5%（34/38）,70.7%（41/58） respectively,and there were significant differences between two groups（P〈0.05）.Bleeding rate of minimally invasive group was 12.1%（7/58）,which lower than that of standard channel group [29.0%（11/38）],and there were significant differences（P〈0.05）.the amount of bleeding of standard channel group and minimally invasive group were（151.7 ±24.3）,（125.3±31.8） mL,there were significant differences between two groups（P〈0.05）.Conclusion The methods of standard channel percutaneous renal lens and minimally invasive percutaneous renal mirror lithotripsy have each advantages,the former has the higher rate of renal calculi removal,however,it＇s rate of bleeding and the amount of bleeding are higher than the latter.