评估双极肾造瘘道烧灼术 "BNTC "的安全性,实现安全的无管经皮肾镜碎石术:随机对照试验。

IF 2 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Mohamed Omar, Tarek Ahmed Amin Ibrahim, Sultan Sultan, Mohamed El-Gharabawy, Yasser Noureldin, Saeed Bin Hamri, Khaled Sayedahmed
{"title":"评估双极肾造瘘道烧灼术 \"BNTC \"的安全性,实现安全的无管经皮肾镜碎石术:随机对照试验。","authors":"Mohamed Omar, Tarek Ahmed Amin Ibrahim, Sultan Sultan, Mohamed El-Gharabawy, Yasser Noureldin, Saeed Bin Hamri, Khaled Sayedahmed","doi":"10.1007/s00240-024-01575-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To assess the safety and effectiveness of tubed versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) after tract inspection and bipolar cauterization of the significant bleeders. Patients who were scheduled for PCNL were screened for enrollment in this prospective randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups; Group 1 received tubeless PCNL with endoscopic inspection of the access tract using bipolar cauterization of the significant bleeders only, while Group 2 had a nephrostomy tube was inserted without tract inspection. We excluded patients with multiple tracts, stone clearance failure, and significant collecting system perforation. We recorded blood loss, hemoglobin drop after 6 h, postoperative analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and the need for angioembolization. A total of 110 patients completed the study. There were no significant differences between the two groups in in terms of demographic characteristics. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the mean decrease in hemoglobin after 6 h and the frequency of blood transfusion. However, the incidence of hematuria within the first 6 h (p = 0.008), postoperative pain scale (p = 0.0001), the rate of analgesia requirement (p = 0.0001) and prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.0001) were significantly higher in Group 2. Only 9 cases of tract screened patients (16% of group 1) required cauterization. Tubeless PCNL with tract inspection and cauterization of bleeders can provide a safer tubeless PCNL with less postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, and same-day discharge.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"52 1","pages":"106"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11258053/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the safety of bipolar nephrostomy tract cauterization \\\"BNTC\\\" towards a safe tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Omar, Tarek Ahmed Amin Ibrahim, Sultan Sultan, Mohamed El-Gharabawy, Yasser Noureldin, Saeed Bin Hamri, Khaled Sayedahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00240-024-01575-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To assess the safety and effectiveness of tubed versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) after tract inspection and bipolar cauterization of the significant bleeders. Patients who were scheduled for PCNL were screened for enrollment in this prospective randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups; Group 1 received tubeless PCNL with endoscopic inspection of the access tract using bipolar cauterization of the significant bleeders only, while Group 2 had a nephrostomy tube was inserted without tract inspection. We excluded patients with multiple tracts, stone clearance failure, and significant collecting system perforation. We recorded blood loss, hemoglobin drop after 6 h, postoperative analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and the need for angioembolization. A total of 110 patients completed the study. There were no significant differences between the two groups in in terms of demographic characteristics. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the mean decrease in hemoglobin after 6 h and the frequency of blood transfusion. However, the incidence of hematuria within the first 6 h (p = 0.008), postoperative pain scale (p = 0.0001), the rate of analgesia requirement (p = 0.0001) and prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.0001) were significantly higher in Group 2. Only 9 cases of tract screened patients (16% of group 1) required cauterization. Tubeless PCNL with tract inspection and cauterization of bleeders can provide a safer tubeless PCNL with less postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, and same-day discharge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11258053/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01575-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-024-01575-2","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

摘要

目的:评估在对明显出血部位进行道检查和双极烧灼后,有管与无管经皮肾镜碎石术(PCNL)的安全性和有效性。这项前瞻性随机对照试验筛选了计划进行 PCNL 的患者。患者被随机分配到两组中的一组;第一组接受无管 PCNL,仅使用双极烧灼法对重要出血点进行内窥镜检查,而第二组则插入肾造瘘管,无需检查。我们排除了有多条通路、结石清除失败和采集系统严重穿孔的患者。我们记录了失血量、6 小时后血红蛋白下降情况、术后镇痛要求、住院时间以及是否需要血管栓塞。共有 110 名患者完成了研究。两组患者的人口统计学特征无明显差异。同样,6 小时后血红蛋白平均下降率和输血频率也没有明显差异。然而,第 2 组患者在头 6 h 内血尿发生率(p = 0.008)、术后疼痛量表(p = 0.0001)、镇痛需求率(p = 0.0001)和住院时间延长(p = 0.0001)方面均明显高于第 2 组。只有 9 例管道筛查患者(占第 1 组的 16%)需要烧灼。无管 PCNL 术中对出血道进行检查和烧灼可提供更安全的无管 PCNL,术后疼痛和镇痛需求更少,并可当天出院。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluating the safety of bipolar nephrostomy tract cauterization "BNTC" towards a safe tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Evaluating the safety of bipolar nephrostomy tract cauterization "BNTC" towards a safe tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomized controlled trial.

To assess the safety and effectiveness of tubed versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) after tract inspection and bipolar cauterization of the significant bleeders. Patients who were scheduled for PCNL were screened for enrollment in this prospective randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups; Group 1 received tubeless PCNL with endoscopic inspection of the access tract using bipolar cauterization of the significant bleeders only, while Group 2 had a nephrostomy tube was inserted without tract inspection. We excluded patients with multiple tracts, stone clearance failure, and significant collecting system perforation. We recorded blood loss, hemoglobin drop after 6 h, postoperative analgesia requirements, hospital stay, and the need for angioembolization. A total of 110 patients completed the study. There were no significant differences between the two groups in in terms of demographic characteristics. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the mean decrease in hemoglobin after 6 h and the frequency of blood transfusion. However, the incidence of hematuria within the first 6 h (p = 0.008), postoperative pain scale (p = 0.0001), the rate of analgesia requirement (p = 0.0001) and prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.0001) were significantly higher in Group 2. Only 9 cases of tract screened patients (16% of group 1) required cauterization. Tubeless PCNL with tract inspection and cauterization of bleeders can provide a safer tubeless PCNL with less postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, and same-day discharge.

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
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