S. Popov, R. Guseinov, N. Gadjiev, A. V. Davydov, V. Obidnyak, R. S. Barhitdinov, V. V. Perepelitsa
{"title":"经皮输尿管顺行碎石术治疗输尿管近端结石:综述自己的使用经验","authors":"S. Popov, R. Guseinov, N. Gadjiev, A. V. Davydov, V. Obidnyak, R. S. Barhitdinov, V. V. Perepelitsa","doi":"10.21886/2308-6424-2021-9-2-92-99","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Currently, a large number of techniques are used in the treatment of patients with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL), retrograde ureterolithotripsy (RULT), laparoscopic and retro-peritoneoscopic ureterolithotomy.Purpose of the study. To evaluate the possibilities and effectiveness of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones in comparison with transurethral contact ureterolithotripsy.Materials and methods. Twenty-eight patients with urolithiasis were treated, who underwent percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy (PAULT) and 27 patients of the control group, who underwent RULT. All patients included in the study underwent a standard preoperative examination: complete blood count and urine analysis, bacteriological urine culture, biochemical tests, and X-ray research methods. Plain urography, renal ultrasound, computed tomography were used as imaging methods. The OLYMPUS URF-V3 8.4 Ch (Olympus Europa SE & Co. KG., Germany) video uretero-renoscope was used for PAULT in patients of the main group; lithotripsy was performed using thulium laser. The results of the study were subjected to statistical processing in order to determine the statistical significance of the differences between the data obtained. Quantitative variables were described using the arithmetic mean (M) and standard deviation (5). Qualitative variables were estimated by absolute and relative frequencies (percentages). The data were considered reliable at p values < 0.05.Results. The average time of surgical intervention in patients of the main group from the moment of placement of the ureteral catheter was 47 ± 12 min, with access without preliminary renal catheterization: 28 ± 4 min. Average time of surgical intervention in patients of the control group: 42.0 ± 10.7 minutes. The presented data indicate a significant (p < 0.05) greater cases' number of complete stone removal among patients of the main group compared with patients in the control group (74.0%).Conclusion. PAULT is preferred among choice treatment methods for patients with proximal ureteral large stones, for whom RULT and ESWL cannot be performed with a high level of “stone-free” rate and a minimum number of complications.","PeriodicalId":345779,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Urologii","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: overview own experience use\",\"authors\":\"S. Popov, R. Guseinov, N. Gadjiev, A. V. Davydov, V. Obidnyak, R. S. Barhitdinov, V. V. Perepelitsa\",\"doi\":\"10.21886/2308-6424-2021-9-2-92-99\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. Currently, a large number of techniques are used in the treatment of patients with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL), retrograde ureterolithotripsy (RULT), laparoscopic and retro-peritoneoscopic ureterolithotomy.Purpose of the study. To evaluate the possibilities and effectiveness of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones in comparison with transurethral contact ureterolithotripsy.Materials and methods. Twenty-eight patients with urolithiasis were treated, who underwent percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy (PAULT) and 27 patients of the control group, who underwent RULT. All patients included in the study underwent a standard preoperative examination: complete blood count and urine analysis, bacteriological urine culture, biochemical tests, and X-ray research methods. Plain urography, renal ultrasound, computed tomography were used as imaging methods. The OLYMPUS URF-V3 8.4 Ch (Olympus Europa SE & Co. KG., Germany) video uretero-renoscope was used for PAULT in patients of the main group; lithotripsy was performed using thulium laser. The results of the study were subjected to statistical processing in order to determine the statistical significance of the differences between the data obtained. Quantitative variables were described using the arithmetic mean (M) and standard deviation (5). Qualitative variables were estimated by absolute and relative frequencies (percentages). The data were considered reliable at p values < 0.05.Results. The average time of surgical intervention in patients of the main group from the moment of placement of the ureteral catheter was 47 ± 12 min, with access without preliminary renal catheterization: 28 ± 4 min. Average time of surgical intervention in patients of the control group: 42.0 ± 10.7 minutes. The presented data indicate a significant (p < 0.05) greater cases' number of complete stone removal among patients of the main group compared with patients in the control group (74.0%).Conclusion. PAULT is preferred among choice treatment methods for patients with proximal ureteral large stones, for whom RULT and ESWL cannot be performed with a high level of “stone-free” rate and a minimum number of complications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":345779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Urologii\",\"volume\":\"91 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Urologii\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2021-9-2-92-99\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Urologii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2021-9-2-92-99","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
介绍。目前,输尿管结石患者的治疗采用了大量的技术:体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)、逆行输尿管碎石术(RULT)、腹腔镜和后腹膜镜输尿管取石术。研究目的:目的探讨经皮输尿管顺行碎石术与经尿道接触输尿管碎石术治疗输尿管近端结石的可行性和有效性。材料和方法。28例尿石症患者行经皮输尿管顺行碎石术(pult),对照组27例行RULT。所有纳入研究的患者都进行了标准的术前检查:全血细胞计数和尿液分析,细菌学尿液培养,生化检查和x线研究方法。影像学方法包括尿路平片、肾脏超声、计算机断层扫描。OLYMPUS URF-V3 8.4 Ch (OLYMPUS Europa SE & Co. KG)。主组患者采用输尿管镜(德国)视频输尿管镜;采用铥激光碎石。对研究结果进行统计处理,以确定所得数据之间差异的统计显著性。定量变量用算术平均值(M)和标准差(5)来描述。定性变量用绝对频率和相对频率(百分比)来估计。当p值< 0.05时,认为数据可靠。主组患者自输尿管置管时刻起平均手术介入时间为47±12 min,未行前期肾置管时平均手术介入时间为28±4 min。对照组患者平均手术介入时间为42.0±10.7 min。本组资料显示,主组患者结石完全取出例数(74.0%)明显高于对照组(p < 0.05)。输尿管近端大结石患者首选的治疗方法是PAULT,对于输尿管近端大结石患者,RULT和ESWL不能以高的“无石”率和最少的并发症进行治疗。
Percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: overview own experience use
Introduction. Currently, a large number of techniques are used in the treatment of patients with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL), retrograde ureterolithotripsy (RULT), laparoscopic and retro-peritoneoscopic ureterolithotomy.Purpose of the study. To evaluate the possibilities and effectiveness of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones in comparison with transurethral contact ureterolithotripsy.Materials and methods. Twenty-eight patients with urolithiasis were treated, who underwent percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy (PAULT) and 27 patients of the control group, who underwent RULT. All patients included in the study underwent a standard preoperative examination: complete blood count and urine analysis, bacteriological urine culture, biochemical tests, and X-ray research methods. Plain urography, renal ultrasound, computed tomography were used as imaging methods. The OLYMPUS URF-V3 8.4 Ch (Olympus Europa SE & Co. KG., Germany) video uretero-renoscope was used for PAULT in patients of the main group; lithotripsy was performed using thulium laser. The results of the study were subjected to statistical processing in order to determine the statistical significance of the differences between the data obtained. Quantitative variables were described using the arithmetic mean (M) and standard deviation (5). Qualitative variables were estimated by absolute and relative frequencies (percentages). The data were considered reliable at p values < 0.05.Results. The average time of surgical intervention in patients of the main group from the moment of placement of the ureteral catheter was 47 ± 12 min, with access without preliminary renal catheterization: 28 ± 4 min. Average time of surgical intervention in patients of the control group: 42.0 ± 10.7 minutes. The presented data indicate a significant (p < 0.05) greater cases' number of complete stone removal among patients of the main group compared with patients in the control group (74.0%).Conclusion. PAULT is preferred among choice treatment methods for patients with proximal ureteral large stones, for whom RULT and ESWL cannot be performed with a high level of “stone-free” rate and a minimum number of complications.