Volume 19 Issue 5
May  2021
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
SONG Ming-ze, TANG Yin. Comparison of clinical efficacy between percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and transurethral flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of renal calculi[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2021, 19(5): 753-755,766. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.001908
Citation: SONG Ming-ze, TANG Yin. Comparison of clinical efficacy between percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and transurethral flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of renal calculi[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2021, 19(5): 753-755,766. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.001908

Comparison of clinical efficacy between percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and transurethral flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of renal calculi

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.001908
Funds:

 2018SZ0168

  • Received Date: 2020-08-21
    Available Online: 2022-02-16
  •   Objective  To compare the percutaneous nephroscope rubble stone extraction (percutaneous nephrostolithotomy, PCNL) and transurethral soft ureter mirror rubble stone extraction (flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy, FURL) for clinical effect.  Methods  A total of 150 cases of patients with renal stones were selected from the Uropoiesis Surgical Department in the West China Hospital of Sichuan University from February 2019 to February 2020. According to the operation method, they were divided into PCNL (64 cases) and FURL (86 cases) groups. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, stone clearance and statistics of the two groups of patients were observed and compared with postoperative complications.  Results  For calculi with a diameter of < 2 cm, there was no statistically significant difference in operation time and postoperative stone clearance rate between the two groups (all P>0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay time in the PCNL group were significantly higher than those in the FURL group (all P < 0.01). For calculi with a diameter of ≥2 cm, the operative time of PCNL group was significantly shorter than that of FURL group (P < 0.01). The amount of intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay were significantly higher than those of FURL group (all P < 0.01). The postoperative stone clearance rate of PCNL group was significantly higher than that of FURL group (P < 0.05). The incidence of complications in FURL group was significantly lower than that in PCNL group (χ2=4.634, P < 0.05).  Conclusion  For patients with renal calculi with a diameter of≥2 cm, the PCNL surgical scheme has a high stone clearance rate and short operation time, which can be used as the first choice of treatment. However, due to the large intraoperative trauma, large amount of bleeding, long hospital stays and high incidence of postoperative complications, clinicians should pay attention to it. For patients with renal calculi with a diameter of < 2 cm, FURL surgical protocol can be selected, which has less intraoperative trauma, higher stone clearance rate, shorter hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications and higher safety. In the future, appropriate surgical methods should be selected according to the opportunity.

     

  • loading
  • [1]
    廖国栋, 俞蔚文, 章越龙, 等. 超微经皮肾镜和输尿管软镜在治疗肾结石中的感染控制及疗效的对比研究[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2017, 27(11): 2543-2546. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHYY201711039.htm
    [2]
    徐世田, 谭小林, 张思州, 等. 经皮肾镜取石术与经皮输尿管软镜取石术治疗肾结石对比研究[J]. 现代医药卫生, 2017, 33(24): 3778-3779. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5519.2017.24.031
    [3]
    陈家璧, 李毅宁, 庄伟. 输尿管软镜碎石术与经皮肾镜碎石术治疗肾结石的临床疗效及安全性比较分析[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2016, 5(3): 150-153. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-5146.2016.03.006
    [4]
    吴爱斌, 秦锁炳, 卜强. 经皮肾镜取石术与输尿管软镜下钬激光碎石术治疗直径≤2 cm及 > 2 cm肾结石的临床疗效比较[J]. 医学临床研究, 2017, 34(12): 2474-2475. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-7171.2017.12.076
    [5]
    闫若东, 任山, 张宇. 经皮肾镜碎石术与输尿管软镜治疗肾结石的临床疗效对比研究[J]. 中国医药指南, 2020, 18(19): 123-124. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YYXK202019057.htm
    [6]
    张金华. 输尿管软镜碎石术与微创经皮肾取石术治疗肾盏结石临床随机对照研究[J]. 中国实用医药, 2016, 11(2): 52-53. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZSSA201602032.htm
    [7]
    刘浩, 李超, 谭志明. 经输尿管软镜取石术与经皮肾镜取石术治疗肾结石临床对照分析[J]. 中国社区医师, 2020, 36(26): 44-45. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-614x.2020.26.021
    [8]
    俞加法, 邬嘉波, 陈炳, 等. 经皮肾镜与输尿管软镜碎石术对肾结石治疗的临床疗效比较研究[J]. 浙江创伤外科, 2018, 23(2): 270-272. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-7147.2018.02.029
    [9]
    周厚勇, 周宇, 黄辉, 等. 输尿管软镜和经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗鹿角形肾结石的疗效观察[J]. 局解手术学杂志, 2019, 28(9): 753-756. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JJXZ201909017.htm
    [10]
    邓青富, 朱永生, 裴利军, 等. 单微通道经皮肾镜联合输尿管软镜治疗复杂肾结石的疗效评价[J]. 贵州医药, 2017, 41(3): 296-297. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-744X.2017.03.030
    [11]
    孙一鸣. 经尿道输尿管软镜与经皮肾镜治疗肾结石的临床疗效比较[D]. 蚌埠: 蚌埠医学院, 2019.
    [12]
    祝旭, 向景平, 武敏. 经输尿管软镜取石术与经皮肾镜取石术治疗肾结石疗效比较[J]. 临床医学, 2016, 36(3): 62-63. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-EBED201603033.htm
    [13]
    段先忠, 马东升, 杨文周, 等. 经皮肾镜应用第四代EMS超声联合气压弹道碎石清石系统治疗肾结石210例疗效观察[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2015, 4(5): 279-282. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-5146.2015.05.008
    [14]
    周泽光, 刘成倍. 经皮肾镜与经输尿管软镜取石术在肾结石治疗中的疗效及安全性分析[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2017, 6(6): 343-347. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-WCMN201706007.htm
    [15]
    俞国锋, 马伟雄, 陈文璞, 等. 应用输尿管软镜碎石术与经皮肾镜取石术治疗肾结石的有效性和安全性[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2018, 23(12): 925-927. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8291.2018.12.008
    [16]
    何强, 黄典东, 蔡杨科, 等. 输尿管软镜与经皮肾镜取石术的安全性和疗效比较[J]. 广州医科大学学报, 2019, 47(6): 61-63. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GZXI201906015.htm
    [17]
    徐绍源, 孙海青. 电子输尿管软镜与微创经皮肾镜碎石术对肾结石的临床疗效及安全性评价[J]. 智慧健康, 2019, 5(17): 65-66, 73. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHJK201917029.htm
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Tables(2)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (365) PDF downloads(7) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return