Microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of 1-2 cm high hardness single upper ureteral stones: a propensity score-matched study.

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Ganlin Wang, Tingan Pan, Yijun Zhou, Xiaonong Dai, Zhenglin Zhang, Wenjian Li
{"title":"Microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of 1-2 cm high hardness single upper ureteral stones: a propensity score-matched study.","authors":"Ganlin Wang, Tingan Pan, Yijun Zhou, Xiaonong Dai, Zhenglin Zhang, Wenjian Li","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01641-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (MPCNL) with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL) in the treatment of single upper ureteral stones with a diameter of 1-2 cm and high hardness. This study retrospectively analyzed 89 patients diagnosed with a single upper ureteral stone with a 1-2 cm diameter and a computed tomography value > 1000 Hounsfield units. A propensity score matching system matched this study with factors to minimize the effect of baseline differences between patients. Ultimately, 29 patients in each of the two groups were successfully matched. The stone-free rate was marginally higher in the MPCNL group than in the FURL group (93.10% vs. 86.21%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.666). Furthermore, the mean operative time in the MPCNL group, although slightly longer than that in the FURL group, did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference (P = 0.833). However, patients in the MPCNL group exhibited a significantly more substantial decrease in hemoglobin than those in the FURL group (P < 0.001) and a substantially more extended postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001). Regarding perioperative complications, the incidence of moderate pain was higher in the MPCNL group than in the FURL group (P = 0.037). The difference in overall complication rates between the two groups did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.108). MPCNL and FURL are efficacious surgical procedures for treating single upper ureteral stones with a 1-2 cm diameter and high hardness.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"52 1","pages":"143"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01641-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (MPCNL) with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL) in the treatment of single upper ureteral stones with a diameter of 1-2 cm and high hardness. This study retrospectively analyzed 89 patients diagnosed with a single upper ureteral stone with a 1-2 cm diameter and a computed tomography value > 1000 Hounsfield units. A propensity score matching system matched this study with factors to minimize the effect of baseline differences between patients. Ultimately, 29 patients in each of the two groups were successfully matched. The stone-free rate was marginally higher in the MPCNL group than in the FURL group (93.10% vs. 86.21%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.666). Furthermore, the mean operative time in the MPCNL group, although slightly longer than that in the FURL group, did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference (P = 0.833). However, patients in the MPCNL group exhibited a significantly more substantial decrease in hemoglobin than those in the FURL group (P < 0.001) and a substantially more extended postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001). Regarding perioperative complications, the incidence of moderate pain was higher in the MPCNL group than in the FURL group (P = 0.037). The difference in overall complication rates between the two groups did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.108). MPCNL and FURL are efficacious surgical procedures for treating single upper ureteral stones with a 1-2 cm diameter and high hardness.

治疗 1-2 厘米高硬度单侧输尿管上段结石的微通道经皮肾镜碎石术与柔性输尿管镜碎石术:倾向评分匹配研究。
本研究旨在比较微通道经皮肾镜碎石术(MPCNL)与柔性输尿管镜碎石术(FURL)在治疗直径 1-2 厘米、硬度高的单发输尿管上段结石方面的临床疗效和安全性。本研究回顾性分析了89名确诊为单发输尿管上段结石的患者,结石直径为1-2厘米,计算机断层扫描值大于1000 Hounsfield单位。倾向得分匹配系统对这项研究进行了因素匹配,以尽量减少患者之间基线差异的影响。最终,两组各有 29 名患者成功配对。MPCNL 组的无结石率略高于 FURL 组(93.10% 对 86.21%),但差异未达到统计学意义(P = 0.666)。此外,MPCNL 组的平均手术时间虽然略长于 FURL 组,但在统计学上没有显著差异(P = 0.833)。不过,MPCNL 组患者的血红蛋白下降幅度明显大于 FURL 组(P=0.833)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urolithiasis
Urolithiasis UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field. Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信