比较 RLP 和 PCNL 对患有慢性肾脏病的大型盆腔结石的治疗效果。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Shushang Chen, Jin Chen, Jianping Zhang, Kuanyin Wang, Junjie Wei, Mingfang Weng, Lingfeng Zhu
{"title":"比较 RLP 和 PCNL 对患有慢性肾脏病的大型盆腔结石的治疗效果。","authors":"Shushang Chen, Jin Chen, Jianping Zhang, Kuanyin Wang, Junjie Wei, Mingfang Weng, Lingfeng Zhu","doi":"10.1080/13645706.2023.2286241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effect and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (RLP) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for large pelvis calculi with chronic kidney disease (CKD).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Between June 2017 and July 2021, 62 patients with CKD and large renal pelvis calculi (>4 cm<sup>2</sup>) were treated with RLP. Another 62 patients receiving PCNL served as controls. The perioperative parameters were compared. All patients were followed up for at least 6 months with the stone-free rate and the recovery of renal function evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significantly longer operation time (101.47 ± 9.25 vs 62.55 ± 7.54 min), less drop in hemoglobin level (0.90 ± 0.38 vs 2.13 ± 0.80 g/dl), staged operations (0% vs 12.9%), postoperative fever (3.23% vs 16.13%) and delayed bowel movement (3.23% vs 14.52), and shorter hospitalization time (3.90 ± 1.66 vs 4.72 ± 1.80 days) were observed in the RLP group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The stone-free rates were 100% in the RLP group and 88.7% in the PCNL group at the 3-months follow-up (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The serum creatinine level was significantly lower in the RLP group at 24 h (2.81 ± 1.18 vs 3.00 ± 1.15 mg/dl) and 1 week (2.08 ± 1.13 vs 2.34 ± 1.01 mg/dl) postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although associated with a longer operation time, RLP is a safer and more efficient surgical option for CKD patients with large pelvic stones than PCNL.</p>","PeriodicalId":18537,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","volume":" ","pages":"51-57"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of RLP and PCNL for large pelvis calculi with CKD.\",\"authors\":\"Shushang Chen, Jin Chen, Jianping Zhang, Kuanyin Wang, Junjie Wei, Mingfang Weng, Lingfeng Zhu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13645706.2023.2286241\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effect and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (RLP) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for large pelvis calculi with chronic kidney disease (CKD).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Between June 2017 and July 2021, 62 patients with CKD and large renal pelvis calculi (>4 cm<sup>2</sup>) were treated with RLP. Another 62 patients receiving PCNL served as controls. The perioperative parameters were compared. All patients were followed up for at least 6 months with the stone-free rate and the recovery of renal function evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significantly longer operation time (101.47 ± 9.25 vs 62.55 ± 7.54 min), less drop in hemoglobin level (0.90 ± 0.38 vs 2.13 ± 0.80 g/dl), staged operations (0% vs 12.9%), postoperative fever (3.23% vs 16.13%) and delayed bowel movement (3.23% vs 14.52), and shorter hospitalization time (3.90 ± 1.66 vs 4.72 ± 1.80 days) were observed in the RLP group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The stone-free rates were 100% in the RLP group and 88.7% in the PCNL group at the 3-months follow-up (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The serum creatinine level was significantly lower in the RLP group at 24 h (2.81 ± 1.18 vs 3.00 ± 1.15 mg/dl) and 1 week (2.08 ± 1.13 vs 2.34 ± 1.01 mg/dl) postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although associated with a longer operation time, RLP is a safer and more efficient surgical option for CKD patients with large pelvic stones than PCNL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"51-57\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2023.2286241\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2023.2286241","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的比较腹膜后腹腔镜肾盂切开取石术(RLP)和经皮肾盂切开取石术(PCNL)治疗慢性肾脏病(CKD)肾盂大结石的效果和安全性:2017年6月至2021年7月期间,62名患有慢性肾脏病和肾盂大结石(>4平方厘米)的患者接受了RLP治疗。另62名接受PCNL治疗的患者作为对照组。对围手术期参数进行了比较。对所有患者进行了至少 6 个月的随访,评估无结石率和肾功能恢复情况:结果:手术时间明显延长(101.47 ± 9.25 vs 62.55 ± 7.54 分钟),血红蛋白水平下降较少(0.90 ± 0.38 vs 2.13 ± 0.80 g/dl),手术分期(0% vs 12.9%),术后发热(3.23% vs 16.13%)和排便延迟(3.23% vs 14.52),RLP 组的住院时间较短(3.90 ± 1.66 vs 4.72 ± 1.80 天)(p p p 结论:虽然手术时间较长,但与 PCNL 相比,RLP 对患有大型盆腔结石的 CKD 患者来说是一种更安全、更有效的手术选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of RLP and PCNL for large pelvis calculi with CKD.

Objectives: To compare the effect and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (RLP) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for large pelvis calculi with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Material and methods: Between June 2017 and July 2021, 62 patients with CKD and large renal pelvis calculi (>4 cm2) were treated with RLP. Another 62 patients receiving PCNL served as controls. The perioperative parameters were compared. All patients were followed up for at least 6 months with the stone-free rate and the recovery of renal function evaluated.

Results: Significantly longer operation time (101.47 ± 9.25 vs 62.55 ± 7.54 min), less drop in hemoglobin level (0.90 ± 0.38 vs 2.13 ± 0.80 g/dl), staged operations (0% vs 12.9%), postoperative fever (3.23% vs 16.13%) and delayed bowel movement (3.23% vs 14.52), and shorter hospitalization time (3.90 ± 1.66 vs 4.72 ± 1.80 days) were observed in the RLP group (p < 0.05). The stone-free rates were 100% in the RLP group and 88.7% in the PCNL group at the 3-months follow-up (p < 0.05). The serum creatinine level was significantly lower in the RLP group at 24 h (2.81 ± 1.18 vs 3.00 ± 1.15 mg/dl) and 1 week (2.08 ± 1.13 vs 2.34 ± 1.01 mg/dl) postoperatively (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Although associated with a longer operation time, RLP is a safer and more efficient surgical option for CKD patients with large pelvic stones than PCNL.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
39
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies (MITAT) is an international forum for endoscopic surgeons, interventional radiologists and industrial instrument manufacturers. It is the official journal of the Society for Medical Innovation and Technology (SMIT) whose membership includes representatives from a broad spectrum of medical specialities, instrument manufacturing and research. The journal brings the latest developments and innovations in minimally invasive therapy to its readers. What makes Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies unique is that we publish one or two special issues each year, which are devoted to a specific theme. Key topics covered by the journal include: interventional radiology, endoscopic surgery, imaging technology, manipulators and robotics for surgery and education and training for MIS.
×
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