输尿管软腔镜碎石术治疗2- 3cm肾结石的回顾性分析。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of International Medical Research Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-06 DOI:10.1177/03000605251381472
Chenglong Wu, Cong Yin, Jieqing Chen, Qiaolin Mei, Yujia Sun, Hongbing Mei, Xinhui Liao
{"title":"输尿管软腔镜碎石术治疗2- 3cm肾结石的回顾性分析。","authors":"Chenglong Wu, Cong Yin, Jieqing Chen, Qiaolin Mei, Yujia Sun, Hongbing Mei, Xinhui Liao","doi":"10.1177/03000605251381472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using end-fire flexible negative-pressure ureteral access sheath (F-UAS) versus traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) for 2-3-cm kidney stones.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included 136 patients with kidney stones treated with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using F-UAS at Shenzhen Second People's Hospital from November 2022 to November 2023 (F-UAS group) and 132 patients treated with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using T-UAS from November 2021 to October 2022 (T-UAS group). Preoperative assessments included imaging studies (kidney, ureter, and bladder X-ray; noncontrast computed tomography; and renal ultrasound) and laboratory tests (complete blood count, biochemical tests, coagulation function, and urine culture). The stone clearance rate, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsBaseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced. The F-UAS group showed significantly higher stone clearance rate (91.9% vs. 81.8%, p = 0.014), shorter operation time (51.0 ± 13.9 vs. 59.8 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.001), and lower postoperative antibiotic use (2.9% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.027) than the T-UAS group. The intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionsFlexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using F-UAS improves stone clearance, reduces infection-related complications, and shortens operation time compared with that using T-UAS in the treatment of 2-3-cm kidney stones. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":16129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Medical Research","volume":"53 10","pages":"3000605251381472"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrospective analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using end-fire, flexible negative-pressure ureteral access sheath for the management of 2-3-cm kidney stones.\",\"authors\":\"Chenglong Wu, Cong Yin, Jieqing Chen, Qiaolin Mei, Yujia Sun, Hongbing Mei, Xinhui Liao\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03000605251381472\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using end-fire flexible negative-pressure ureteral access sheath (F-UAS) versus traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) for 2-3-cm kidney stones.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included 136 patients with kidney stones treated with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using F-UAS at Shenzhen Second People's Hospital from November 2022 to November 2023 (F-UAS group) and 132 patients treated with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using T-UAS from November 2021 to October 2022 (T-UAS group). Preoperative assessments included imaging studies (kidney, ureter, and bladder X-ray; noncontrast computed tomography; and renal ultrasound) and laboratory tests (complete blood count, biochemical tests, coagulation function, and urine culture). The stone clearance rate, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsBaseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced. The F-UAS group showed significantly higher stone clearance rate (91.9% vs. 81.8%, p = 0.014), shorter operation time (51.0 ± 13.9 vs. 59.8 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.001), and lower postoperative antibiotic use (2.9% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.027) than the T-UAS group. The intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionsFlexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using F-UAS improves stone clearance, reduces infection-related complications, and shortens operation time compared with that using T-UAS in the treatment of 2-3-cm kidney stones. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Medical Research\",\"volume\":\"53 10\",\"pages\":\"3000605251381472\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605251381472\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605251381472","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较末端柔性负压输尿管通路鞘(F-UAS)与传统输尿管通路鞘(T-UAS)输尿管镜下碎石治疗2- 3cm肾结石的疗效和安全性。方法采用回顾性病例对照研究,选取深圳市第二人民医院2022年11月至2023年11月行输尿管柔性镜F-UAS碎石术的肾结石患者136例(F-UAS组)和2021年11月至2022年10月行输尿管柔性镜T-UAS碎石术的患者132例(T-UAS组)。术前评估包括影像学检查(肾脏、输尿管和膀胱x线;非对比计算机断层扫描和肾脏超声)和实验室检查(全血细胞计数、生化检查、凝血功能和尿培养)。比较两组结石清除率、手术时间、术中出血量及并发症。结果两组患者基线特征基本平衡。F-UAS组结石清除率(91.9% vs. 81.8%, p = 0.014)显著提高,手术时间(51.0±13.9 vs. 59.8±18.2 min, p = 0.014)显著缩短
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Retrospective analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using end-fire, flexible negative-pressure ureteral access sheath for the management of 2-3-cm kidney stones.

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using end-fire flexible negative-pressure ureteral access sheath (F-UAS) versus traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) for 2-3-cm kidney stones.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included 136 patients with kidney stones treated with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using F-UAS at Shenzhen Second People's Hospital from November 2022 to November 2023 (F-UAS group) and 132 patients treated with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using T-UAS from November 2021 to October 2022 (T-UAS group). Preoperative assessments included imaging studies (kidney, ureter, and bladder X-ray; noncontrast computed tomography; and renal ultrasound) and laboratory tests (complete blood count, biochemical tests, coagulation function, and urine culture). The stone clearance rate, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsBaseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced. The F-UAS group showed significantly higher stone clearance rate (91.9% vs. 81.8%, p = 0.014), shorter operation time (51.0 ± 13.9 vs. 59.8 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.001), and lower postoperative antibiotic use (2.9% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.027) than the T-UAS group. The intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionsFlexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using F-UAS improves stone clearance, reduces infection-related complications, and shortens operation time compared with that using T-UAS in the treatment of 2-3-cm kidney stones. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

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
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: _Journal of International Medical Research_ is a leading international journal for rapid publication of original medical, pre-clinical and clinical research, reviews, preliminary and pilot studies on a page charge basis. As a service to authors, every article accepted by peer review will be given a full technical edit to make papers as accessible and readable to the international medical community as rapidly as possible. Once the technical edit queries have been answered to the satisfaction of the journal, the paper will be published and made available freely to everyone under a creative commons licence. Symposium proceedings, summaries of presentations or collections of medical, pre-clinical or clinical data on a specific topic are welcome for publication as supplements. Print ISSN: 0300-0605
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信