迷你经皮肾镜取石术和标准经皮肾镜取石术的并发症:比较研究

Q4 Medicine
Rawaz Sharif, N. Jawad
{"title":"迷你经皮肾镜取石术和标准经皮肾镜取石术的并发症:比较研究","authors":"Rawaz Sharif, N. Jawad","doi":"10.4103/MJBL.MJBL_582_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a major surgical procedure and the preferred treatment of choice for renal calculi (medium and large) size. Objectives: The study aims to determine complications between mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL, which is a comparative study to show which one has fewer complications and is safer for a patient with better outcomes. Materials and Methods: In a 1-year prospective study, clinical data from 44 patients who underwent PCNL (standard and mini) type between February 2021 and March 2022 for renal stones in Erbil city. Inclusion criteria included patients with renal stones (stag-horn, partial stag-horn, and non-stag-horn) and who are performing PCNL procedures. The exclusion criteria included patients who have a contraindication for doing PCNL. Results: Forty-four patients participated in the study, 17 underwent mini-PCNL, and 27 underwent standard PCNL. The mean hospital stay among the standard PCNL group (2.5 days) was significantly (P = 0.005) higher than that of the mini-PCNL group (1.7 days). Postoperative fever, infection, and sepsis (25%), bleeding (15.9%), hematuria (65.9%), and retained stone (20.5%). However, the differences in these rates were not significant between the groups. The rate of extravasation in the standard PCNL group (25.9%) was significantly (P = 0.032) higher than that of the mini-PCNL group (0%). Around two-thirds (64.7%) of the mini-PCNL group had no pain, compared with only 11.1% of the standard PCNL group (P = 0.001). Conclusion: The effectiveness of mini-PCNL is still under observation. Mini-PCNL postoperatively with less pain and limitation of blood loss, and less hospitalization for patients, with excellent results for stone free in comparison with standard PCNL.","PeriodicalId":18326,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Babylon","volume":"14 1","pages":"608 - 613"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comparative study\",\"authors\":\"Rawaz Sharif, N. Jawad\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/MJBL.MJBL_582_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a major surgical procedure and the preferred treatment of choice for renal calculi (medium and large) size. Objectives: The study aims to determine complications between mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL, which is a comparative study to show which one has fewer complications and is safer for a patient with better outcomes. Materials and Methods: In a 1-year prospective study, clinical data from 44 patients who underwent PCNL (standard and mini) type between February 2021 and March 2022 for renal stones in Erbil city. Inclusion criteria included patients with renal stones (stag-horn, partial stag-horn, and non-stag-horn) and who are performing PCNL procedures. The exclusion criteria included patients who have a contraindication for doing PCNL. Results: Forty-four patients participated in the study, 17 underwent mini-PCNL, and 27 underwent standard PCNL. The mean hospital stay among the standard PCNL group (2.5 days) was significantly (P = 0.005) higher than that of the mini-PCNL group (1.7 days). Postoperative fever, infection, and sepsis (25%), bleeding (15.9%), hematuria (65.9%), and retained stone (20.5%). However, the differences in these rates were not significant between the groups. The rate of extravasation in the standard PCNL group (25.9%) was significantly (P = 0.032) higher than that of the mini-PCNL group (0%). Around two-thirds (64.7%) of the mini-PCNL group had no pain, compared with only 11.1% of the standard PCNL group (P = 0.001). Conclusion: The effectiveness of mini-PCNL is still under observation. Mini-PCNL postoperatively with less pain and limitation of blood loss, and less hospitalization for patients, with excellent results for stone free in comparison with standard PCNL.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Journal of Babylon\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"608 - 613\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Journal of Babylon\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/MJBL.MJBL_582_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Babylon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/MJBL.MJBL_582_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)是一种主要的外科手术,也是治疗肾结石(中型和大型)的首选方法。研究目的本研究旨在确定迷你 PCNL 和标准 PCNL 的并发症,通过比较研究说明哪种方法并发症更少,对患者更安全,疗效更好。材料和方法:在一项为期一年的前瞻性研究中,收集了埃尔比勒市在 2021 年 2 月至 2022 年 3 月期间接受 PCNL(标准型和迷你型)治疗的 44 名肾结石患者的临床数据。纳入标准包括肾结石(鹿角型、部分鹿角型和非鹿角型)患者和正在进行 PCNL 手术的患者。排除标准包括有 PCNL 禁忌症的患者。结果:44名患者参与了研究,其中17人接受了迷你PCNL,27人接受了标准PCNL。标准 PCNL 组的平均住院时间(2.5 天)明显(P = 0.005)高于迷你 PCNL 组(1.7 天)。术后发烧、感染和败血症(25%)、出血(15.9%)、血尿(65.9%)和结石残留(20.5%)。不过,这些比率在各组之间的差异并不显著。标准 PCNL 组的外渗率(25.9%)明显(P = 0.032)高于迷你 PCNL 组(0%)。迷你 PCNL 组约三分之二(64.7%)的患者无疼痛感,而标准 PCNL 组仅为 11.1%(P = 0.001)。结论迷你 PCNL 的有效性仍有待观察。与标准 PCNL 相比,迷你 PCNL 术后疼痛更轻,失血量更少,患者住院时间更短,无结石效果极佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comparative study
Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a major surgical procedure and the preferred treatment of choice for renal calculi (medium and large) size. Objectives: The study aims to determine complications between mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL, which is a comparative study to show which one has fewer complications and is safer for a patient with better outcomes. Materials and Methods: In a 1-year prospective study, clinical data from 44 patients who underwent PCNL (standard and mini) type between February 2021 and March 2022 for renal stones in Erbil city. Inclusion criteria included patients with renal stones (stag-horn, partial stag-horn, and non-stag-horn) and who are performing PCNL procedures. The exclusion criteria included patients who have a contraindication for doing PCNL. Results: Forty-four patients participated in the study, 17 underwent mini-PCNL, and 27 underwent standard PCNL. The mean hospital stay among the standard PCNL group (2.5 days) was significantly (P = 0.005) higher than that of the mini-PCNL group (1.7 days). Postoperative fever, infection, and sepsis (25%), bleeding (15.9%), hematuria (65.9%), and retained stone (20.5%). However, the differences in these rates were not significant between the groups. The rate of extravasation in the standard PCNL group (25.9%) was significantly (P = 0.032) higher than that of the mini-PCNL group (0%). Around two-thirds (64.7%) of the mini-PCNL group had no pain, compared with only 11.1% of the standard PCNL group (P = 0.001). Conclusion: The effectiveness of mini-PCNL is still under observation. Mini-PCNL postoperatively with less pain and limitation of blood loss, and less hospitalization for patients, with excellent results for stone free in comparison with standard 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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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