经皮或经尿道膀胱取石术治疗膀胱结石:哪个更安全?

J. Torres, Vítor Fernandes, N. Morais*, S. Anacleto, P. Mota, E. Lima
{"title":"经皮或经尿道膀胱取石术治疗膀胱结石:哪个更安全?","authors":"J. Torres, Vítor Fernandes, N. Morais*, S. Anacleto, P. Mota, E. Lima","doi":"10.24915/aup.36.1-2.115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Although the risk of urethral trauma while treating bladder stones is worrisome, evidence about the best treatment approach is scarce. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of transurethral cystolithotomy and percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy in adults´ bladder lithiasis treatment. \nMethods: We retrospectively evaluated 120 patients (January 2012 to December 2017) who were surgically treated for bladder lithiasis with percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy (n= 20) and transurethral cystolithotomy (n= 100). Age, gender, calculi size, surgery duration, hospital stay, post-operative infections, haematuria, pain and urethral strictures were evaluated. Previous diagnosis of benign prostate hyperplasia and urethral strictures were also considered. \nResults: Both groups were homogeneous according to the pre-operative variables evaluated, including calculi dimensions and simultaneous diagnosis. Median surgery time in percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy and transurethral cystolithotomy were 65 and 58 minutes, respectively (p= 0.043). Pain and haematuria were similar in both groups. Median hospital stay was 2.0 days in both groups. Median follow-up time was 13 months. In the transurethral cystolithotomy, three patients (3%) developed urethral stricture while none of the patients treated with PSC developed urethral strictures during the follow-up (p= 0.435). \nDiscussion: Percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy theoretically offers an advantage over transurethral cystolithotomy in terms of urethral trauma, although we did not observe a significant difference. However, it deserves to be considered, especially in patients with known urethral strictures that may hinder transurethral access. Further prospective studies with more patients may however confirm these theoretical advantages.","PeriodicalId":100020,"journal":{"name":"Acta Urológica Portuguesa","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous or Transurethral Cystolithotomy for Bladder Lithiasis: Which is Safer?\",\"authors\":\"J. Torres, Vítor Fernandes, N. Morais*, S. Anacleto, P. Mota, E. Lima\",\"doi\":\"10.24915/aup.36.1-2.115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Although the risk of urethral trauma while treating bladder stones is worrisome, evidence about the best treatment approach is scarce. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of transurethral cystolithotomy and percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy in adults´ bladder lithiasis treatment. \\nMethods: We retrospectively evaluated 120 patients (January 2012 to December 2017) who were surgically treated for bladder lithiasis with percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy (n= 20) and transurethral cystolithotomy (n= 100). Age, gender, calculi size, surgery duration, hospital stay, post-operative infections, haematuria, pain and urethral strictures were evaluated. Previous diagnosis of benign prostate hyperplasia and urethral strictures were also considered. \\nResults: Both groups were homogeneous according to the pre-operative variables evaluated, including calculi dimensions and simultaneous diagnosis. Median surgery time in percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy and transurethral cystolithotomy were 65 and 58 minutes, respectively (p= 0.043). Pain and haematuria were similar in both groups. Median hospital stay was 2.0 days in both groups. Median follow-up time was 13 months. In the transurethral cystolithotomy, three patients (3%) developed urethral stricture while none of the patients treated with PSC developed urethral strictures during the follow-up (p= 0.435). \\nDiscussion: Percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy theoretically offers an advantage over transurethral cystolithotomy in terms of urethral trauma, although we did not observe a significant difference. However, it deserves to be considered, especially in patients with known urethral strictures that may hinder transurethral access. Further prospective studies with more patients may however confirm these theoretical advantages.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100020,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Urológica Portuguesa\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Urológica Portuguesa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24915/aup.36.1-2.115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Urológica Portuguesa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24915/aup.36.1-2.115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:虽然治疗膀胱结石时尿道损伤的风险令人担忧,但关于最佳治疗方法的证据很少。本研究的目的是比较经尿道膀胱取石术和经皮耻骨上膀胱取石术治疗成人膀胱结石的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾性分析2012年1月至2017年12月接受经皮耻骨上膀胱取石术(n= 20)和经尿道膀胱取石术(n= 100)治疗膀胱结石的120例患者。评估年龄、性别、结石大小、手术时间、住院时间、术后感染、血尿、疼痛和尿道狭窄。先前诊断的良性前列腺增生和尿道狭窄也被考虑在内。结果:两组术前指标均一致,包括结石尺寸和同时诊断。经皮耻骨上取石术和经尿道取石术的中位手术时间分别为65分钟和58分钟(p= 0.043)。两组疼痛和血尿相似。两组患者的平均住院时间均为2.0天。中位随访时间为13个月。经尿道膀胱取石术中有3例(3%)患者出现尿道狭窄,而PSC治疗的患者在随访期间均未出现尿道狭窄(p= 0.435)。讨论:就尿道创伤而言,经皮耻骨上膀胱取石术理论上比经尿道膀胱取石术有优势,尽管我们没有观察到显著差异。然而,值得考虑的是,特别是在已知尿道狭窄的患者,可能会阻碍经尿道通道。然而,更多患者的进一步前瞻性研究可能会证实这些理论上的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Percutaneous or Transurethral Cystolithotomy for Bladder Lithiasis: Which is Safer?
Introduction: Although the risk of urethral trauma while treating bladder stones is worrisome, evidence about the best treatment approach is scarce. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of transurethral cystolithotomy and percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy in adults´ bladder lithiasis treatment. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 120 patients (January 2012 to December 2017) who were surgically treated for bladder lithiasis with percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy (n= 20) and transurethral cystolithotomy (n= 100). Age, gender, calculi size, surgery duration, hospital stay, post-operative infections, haematuria, pain and urethral strictures were evaluated. Previous diagnosis of benign prostate hyperplasia and urethral strictures were also considered. Results: Both groups were homogeneous according to the pre-operative variables evaluated, including calculi dimensions and simultaneous diagnosis. Median surgery time in percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy and transurethral cystolithotomy were 65 and 58 minutes, respectively (p= 0.043). Pain and haematuria were similar in both groups. Median hospital stay was 2.0 days in both groups. Median follow-up time was 13 months. In the transurethral cystolithotomy, three patients (3%) developed urethral stricture while none of the patients treated with PSC developed urethral strictures during the follow-up (p= 0.435). Discussion: Percutaneous suprapubic cystolithotomy theoretically offers an advantage over transurethral cystolithotomy in terms of urethral trauma, although we did not observe a significant difference. However, it deserves to be considered, especially in patients with known urethral strictures that may hinder transurethral access. Further prospective studies with more patients may however confirm these theoretical advantages.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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