[1]王世先** 杨水法 杨恩明 潘东山 黄旭锋 谢晓强 王俊龙 王飞 洪德时 林晓翰 杨妙莹.输尿管软镜及微造瘘经皮肾镜处理2~3 cm肾下盏结石的对比研究[J].中国微创外科杂志,2020,01(1):35-38.
　Wang Shixian,Yang Shuifa,Yang Enming,et al.Comparison of Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Subrenal Calyx Calculus With a Diameter of 2-3 cm[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2020,01(1):35-38.
点击复制

输尿管软镜及微造瘘经皮肾镜处理2~3 cm肾下盏结石的对比研究()
分享到：

《中国微创外科杂志》[ISSN:1009-6604/CN:11-4526/R]

卷:
01
期数:
2020年1期
页码:
35-38
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2020-03-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Subrenal Calyx Calculus With a Diameter of 2-3 cm
作者:
王世先** 杨水法 杨恩明 潘东山 黄旭锋 谢晓强 王俊龙 王飞 洪德时 林晓翰 杨妙莹
（厦门医学院附属第二医院泌尿外科，厦门361021）
Author(s):
Wang Shixian;  Yang Shuifa;  Yang Enming;  et al.
Department of Urology, The Affiliated Second Hospital of Xiamen Medical College, Xiamen 361021, China
关键词:
肾下盏结石; 输尿管软镜; 微造瘘经皮肾镜; 钬激光
Keywords:
Subrenal calyx caculus; Flexible ureterorenoscope; Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Holmium laser
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的比较输尿管软镜（flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy,fURSL）及微造瘘经皮肾镜碎石（miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy,MPCNL）处理2~3 cm肾下盏结石的疗效。方法回顾性分析我院2018年6月~2019年4月85例2~3 cm肾下盏结石的资料。其中fURSL 42例，钬激光碎石，较大的结石以取石网篮取出；MPCNL 43例，F16通道，气压弹道或钬激光碎石，以涡流冲出或异物钳取出。2组术前资料差异无显著性（P>0.05）。比较2组碎石成功率及并发症。结果与MPCNL相比，fURSL一次性结石取净率低［66.7%（28/42） vs. 88.4%（38/43）, χ2=5.767，P=0.016］，手术时间长［(47.2±4.1)min vs. (34.3±6.4)min,t=11.121，P=0.000］，但术中出血少［血红蛋白下降值分别为(2.68±1.26)g/L和(5.06±1.28)g/L,t=-8.637，P=0.000］，术后迟发性出血发生率低［0%(0/42) vs. 14.0%(6/43),P=0.026］，术后住院时间短［（3.1±1.1）d vs. （5.2±1.2）d,t=-8.292，P=0.000］。2组术后发热发生率差异无显著性（P>0.05）。结论fURSL与MPCNL均可以处理2~3 cm肾下盏结石，MPCNL的取石效率高，fURSL的创伤小、出血少。
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURSL) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) for treating subrenal calyx caculus with a diameter of 2-3 cm.MethodsA total of 85 patients who underwent fURSL (n=42) or MPCNL (n=43) for subrenal calyx calculus stones with a diameter of 2-3 cm from June 2018 to April 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. In Group fURSL, a flexible ureteroscope sheath required imbedding intraoperatively. The stones were smashed by holmium laser lithotripsy by flexible ureteroscope. The relatively bigger stones were removed by the reticular basket. In Group MPCNL, the F16 operational channel was used. The stones were smashed by pneumatic lithotripsy or holmium laser lithotripsy. Then the little smashed stones were rushed out by eddy currents or grasping forceps. The intraoperative and postoperative data including stonefree rate and complications were compared.Results Compared with MPCNL group, fURSL group showed lower onesession stone free rate (SFR) ［66.7% (28/42) vs. 88.4% (38/43), χ2=5.767, P=0.016］ and longer operation duration ［(47.2±4.1) min vs. (34.3±6.4) min, t=11.121, P=0.000］, but less intraoperative decrease in hemoglobin ［(2.68±1.26) g/L vs. (5.06±1.28) g/L, t=-8.637, P=0.000］, lower incidence of delayed hemorrhage ［0% (0/42) vs. 14.0% (6/43), P=0.026］ and shorter hospital stay ［(3.1±1.1) d vs. (5.2±1.2) d, t=-8.292, P=0.000］. The incidence of postoperative fever had no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsfURSL and MPCNL are both effective and safe for treating subrenal calyx caculus with a diameter of 2-3 cm. MPCNL shows more higher stone free rate. However, fURSL is associated with less trauma and less bleeding.

参考文献/References:

[1]Sabler IM,Katafigiotis I,Gofrit ON,et al.Present indications and techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy:what the future holds?Asian J Urol,2018,5(4):287-294.
[2]Berardinelli F,Proietti S,Cindolo L,et al.A prospective multicenter European study on flexible ureterorenoscopy for the management of renal stone.Int Braz J Urol,2016,42(3):479-486.
[3]RodríguezMonsalve Herrero M,Doizi S,Keller EX,et al.Retrograde intrarenal surgery: An expanding role in treatment of urolithiasis.Asian J Urol,2018,5(4):264-273.
[4]李建伟，王芳，蔡芳震,等.分期输尿管软镜与微创经皮肾镜治疗2~4 cm肾盂结石的随机对照研究.中国微创外科杂志，2016，16（10）：884-888.
[5]Fayad AS,Elsheikh MG,Ghoneima W,et al.Tubeless minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower calyceal stones of 2 cm:a prospective randomised controlled study.Arab J Urol,2017,15(1):36-41.
[6]赵金全，张丽.电子输尿管软镜钬激光碎石治疗上尿路结石.中国微创外科杂志,2019，19（6）：573-576.
[7]Park J,Oh S,Cho MC,et al.The Acceptable criterion of stone burden and the significant factors to choose retrograde intrarenal stone surgery or miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of renal stones >10 mm.J Endourol，2017,31(10):1012-1018.
[8]Li MM,Yang HM,Liu XM,et al.Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter.World J Clin Cases,2018,6(15):931-935.
[9]Lee YJ,Bak DJ,Chung JW,et al.Is it necessary to actively remove stone fragments during retrograde intrarenal surgery?Investig Clin Urol,2016,57(4):274-279.
[10]Gao XS,Liao BH,Chen YT,et al.Different tract sizes of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery:a systematic review and metaanalysis.J Endourol,2017,31(11):1101-1110.
[11]Xiao Y,Li D,Chen L,et al.The R.I.R.S.scoring system:an innovative scoring system for predicting stonefree rate following retrograde intrarenal surgery.BMC Urol,2017,17(1):105.
[12]Tonyal �瘙 塁 ,Ylmaz M,Karaaslan M,et al.Prediction of stonefree status after singlesession retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones.Turk J Urol,2018,44(6):473-477.
[13]Jung GH,Jung JH,Ahn TS,et al.Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus a singlesession percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lowerpole stones with a diameter of 15 to 30 mm:a propensity scorematching study.Korean J Urol,2015,56(7):525-532.
[14]Kl ,Akand M,Van Cleynenbreugel B.Retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones.Part 2. Turk J Urol,2017,43(3):252-260.
[15]Jeong JY,Kim JC,Kang DH,et al.Digital videoscopic retrograde intrarenal surgeries for renal stones:timetomaximal stone length ratio analysis.Yonsei Med J,2018,59(2):303-309.
[16]El Hamed AMA,Elmoghazy H,Aldahshoury M,et al.Single session vs two sessions of flexible ureterosopy (FURS) for dusting of renal pelvic stones 2-3 cm in diameter:does stone size or hardness play a role in number of sessions to be applied?Turk J Urol,2017,43(2):158-161.
[17]Lin CC,Wu LS,Huang SS,et al.Surgical technique to achieve high durability of flexible ureteroscopes:a single hospital experience.Biomed J,2018,41(6):385-390.
[18]Zewu Z,Cui Y,Feng Z,et al.Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediatesize renal stones (2-3 cm):a metaanalysis and systematic review.Int Braz J Urol,2019,45(1):10-22.
[19]Li X,Li J,Zhu W,et al.Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones:a systematic review and metaanalysis.PLoS One,2018,13(10):e0206048.
[20]耿和，施华娟，吴宗林,等.输尿管软镜碎石术和微创经皮肾镜碎石术治疗2~4cm上尿路结石的疗效比较.国际泌尿系统杂志，2018，38（1）:75-79.
[21]Lai D,Chen M,He Y,et al.Safety and efficacy of retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of renal stone in solitary kidney patients.Ren Fail,2018,40(1):390-394.
[22[平秦榕，颜汝平，王剑松,等.双镜联合治疗复杂性肾结石.中国微创外科杂志，2017，17（4）：317-321.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目：厦门市科技局科技惠民项目（3502Z20189064） **通讯作者，Email：qy_wangshixian@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2020-04-16