期刊文献+

输尿管软镜碎石术与经皮肾镜碎石术治疗肾下盏结石的疗效对比 被引量:13

Comparison between retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of lower-pole stones
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的探讨对于直径≤2.5 cm肾下盏结石的最佳微创治疗方法。方法回顾性分析2014年1月—2015年5月该科收治的单侧肾下盏结石81例临床资料和治疗方法。将患者随机分为两组,其中采用输尿管软镜碎石术(retrograde intrarenal surgery,RIRS)的患者为33例,采用经皮肾镜碎石术(percutaneous nephrolithotomy,PCNL)的患者为48例。比较两种手术方法治疗结石的手术时间、碎石成功率、手术前后血红蛋白下降值、术后住院天数、住院费用和并发症等,分析两种治疗方式的临床疗效。结果 RIRS组患者的结石直径为(18.9±3.4)mm,PCNL组患者的结石直径为(19.1±3.2)mm,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。RIRS组手术均顺利完成,术后发热2例,未出现严重的并发症;PCNL组手术均顺利完成,术后发热7例,术中术后明显出血2例,经选择性肾动脉栓塞治愈。一期清石率PCNL组为86.0%,RIRS组为82.3%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);PCNL组手术前后血红蛋白下降值为(16.9±8.9)g·L-1,RIRS组手术前后血红蛋白下降值为(4.7±1.6)g·L-1,手术时间分别为(94.0±17.1)、(117.9±25.1)min,住院天数分别为(9.6±2.4)d、(6.3±1.4)d,住院费用分别为(20 214±3 436.2)、(16 414±2 572.6)元,组间比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对于直径≤2.5 cm的肾脏下盏结石,RIRS与PCNL疗效相近,而RIRS具有创伤小、住院天数少、并发症率低等优点,值得在临床推广使用。 Objective To compare the therapeutic effect of retrograde intrarenal surgery(RIRS)and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL)in treating patients with renal calculi ≤2.5 cm.Methods Data of a total of 81 cases treated by either PCNL(48)or RIRS (33)from January 2014 to May 2015 were retrospectively analyzed.Operative time,stone free rate,postoperative hospital stay,hospital-ization expenses and complications were compared between the 2 groups.Results The stones of the RIRS group and PCNL group were (18.9 ±3.4)mm and (19.1 ±3.2)mm,respectively.There was no significant difference between the two groups.In RIRS group,op-erations were performed successfully in all 33 calculi.No serious complications was recorded except postoperative fever in 2 cases.In PCNL group,all patients had been successfully operated.Postoperative fever occurred in 7 cases.Obvious intraoperative and postopera-tive haemorrhage appeared in 2 cases,and cured by selective renal artery embolization.The operation time of the RIRS group and PCNL group was (117.9 ±25.1)min and (94.0 ±17.1)min respectively,with no significant difference between the two groups(P 〉0.05). The stone free rates of the RIRS group and PCNL group were 86.0%and 82.3%respectively with no significant difference between the two groups(P 〉0.05).Hemoglobin drop -out values of the RIRS group and PCNL group were (4.7 ±1.6)g·L^-1 and(16.9 ±8.9) g·L^-1 with a significant difference between the two groups(P 〈0.05).Postoperative hospital stays of the RIRS group and PCNL group were (6.3 ±1.4)days and (9.6 ±2.4)days with a statistical difference between the two groups(P 〈0.05).Hospitalization expenses of the RIRS group and PCNL group were (16 414 ±2 572.6)RMB and (20 214 ±3 436.2)RMB with a statistical difference between the two groups(P 〈0.05).Conclusions Although RIRS and PCNL have similar curative effect in treating lower -pole renal stones of less than 2.5 cm,RIRS has the advantages of less trauma and fewer complications,lower expenses and shorter hospital stay, which is worthy of clinical application.
出处 《安徽医药》 CAS 2016年第3期488-491,共4页 Anhui Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal
关键词 肾下盏结石 输尿管软镜碎石术 经皮肾镜碎石术 percutaneous nephrolithotomy retrograde intrarenal surgery lower -pole renal stone
  • 相关文献

参考文献18

  • 1Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, et al. Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones [ J ]. Eur Urol,2001,40(6) :619 -624.
  • 2Inci K, Sahin A, Islamoglu E, et al. Prospective long - term follow- up of patients with asymptomatic lower pole caliceal stones [ J ]. J Urol,2007,177(6) :2189 -2192.
  • 3Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB, et al. The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones[ J]. Urology,2012,79 ( 1 ) :61 - 66.
  • 4Burr J, Ishii H, Simmonds N, et al. Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: Comparative outcomes from a University hospital over similar time period[J]. Cent Euro- Dean J Urol.2015.68(2) ,183 - 186.
  • 5李志军,马建新,孙国贤,韩青江,史晓峰,史梦年.肾下盏结石形成的解剖学因素及处理[J].中华泌尿外科杂志,2003,24(6):420-420. 被引量:16
  • 6Koyuncu H, Yencilek F, Kalkan M, et al. Intrarenal surgery vs per- cutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower pole stones greater than 2 cm[J].Int Braz J Urol,2015,41 (2) :245 -251.
  • 7de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, et al. The clinical research of- rice of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 pa- tients [J].J Endouro1,2011,25 ( 1 ) : 11 - 17.
  • 8Armitage JN, Irving SO, Burgess NA, et al. Pereutaneous nephro- lithotomy in the United Kingdom : results of a prospective data rag- istry [J]. Eur Uro1,2012,61 ( 6 ) : 1188 - 1193.
  • 9常全森,李虎,朱永士,马楠,孔德志.不同通道建立方式在经皮肾镜碎石术患者中的应用价值比较[J].安徽医药,2014,18(2):297-299. 被引量:18
  • 10Armitage JN, Withington J, Van der Meulen J, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in England:practice and outcomes described in the Hospital Episode Statistics database [ J ]. BJU Int, 2014,113 (5) :777 -782.

二级参考文献13

共引文献32

同被引文献87

引证文献13

二级引证文献112

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部