{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.
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.