Auge Brian K, Munver Ravi, Kourambas John, Newman Glenn E, Preminger Glenn M
Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
J Endourol. 2002 Oct;16(8):557-63. doi: 10.1089/089277902320913233.
A myriad of minimally invasive options exist for managing symptomatic caliceal diverticula, including shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous surgery, retrograde ureteroscopy, and laparoscopy. Yet no direct comparisons have been made in the literature of the relative treatment efficacy of ureteroscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL). A retrospective review of our patients was performed to determine the most appropriate endoscopic management option for patients with symptomatic caliceal diverticula.
Between November of 1994 and April 2001, 39 patients presented with symptomatic caliceal diverticula, 37 of which contained calculi. Twenty-two patients (56%) underwent PNL, and 17 patients (44%) were managed by URS. Of the PNL group, 82% required the creation of a neoinfundibulotomy. The stone burden in the PNL group averaged 11.4 x 12.0 mm and that in the URS group 12.7 x 13.0 mm (p > 0.05). Pain, recurrent urinary tract infections, and nausea and vomiting were the presenting complaints in both subgroups of patients, with pain being by far the most common symptom. The average hospital stay was 2.8 days for the PNL group. All the URS procedures were performed on a same-day-surgery basis. Results, including stone-free, symptom-free, and complication rates, were compared for the two groups.
Thirty-five percent of the URS group were symptom free at 6 weeks' follow-up, with an additional 29% reporting an improvement in pain, whereas 86% of the PNL group was completely symptom free at 6 weeks' follow-up. Only 19% of the URS group were stone free on follow-up intravenous urography v 78% of those undergoing PNL (three patients failed to return for follow-up imaging). It was not possible to identify the ostium of the stenotic infundibulum in 4 patients (24%) undergoing URS, and 7 patients (41%) eventually went on to PNL with ultimate success. The PNL was statistically better than URS in producing stone-free results for diverticula located in the upper pole and for stones <11 mm (p < 0.05). No complications occurred in the URS group; however, complications were identified in four patients after PNL. One patient developed clot urinary retention necessitating Foley catheterization and manual bladder irrigation; one patient experienced significant bleeding necessitating early cessation of the procedure. Two patients sustained intrathoracic complications, one a pneumothorax and the other a pneumohemothorax after supra-11(th) rib access. Both were managed successfully with tube thoracostomy.
Our review clearly suggests an advantage of percutaneous management over ureteroscopy for complex posterior symptomatic caliceal diverticula, although with a slightly increased risk of complications. Therefore, PNL should be considered the primary modality for managing these difficult processes. In cases where the stenotic infundibulum cannot be traversed with a guidewire, creation of a neoinfundibulotomy permitted secure access to the collecting system while providing effective results.
对于有症状的肾盂憩室,存在多种微创治疗选择,包括冲击波碎石术、经皮手术、逆行输尿管镜检查和腹腔镜检查。然而,文献中尚未对输尿管镜检查(URS)和经皮肾镜碎石术(PNL)的相对治疗效果进行直接比较。我们对患者进行了回顾性研究,以确定有症状的肾盂憩室患者最合适的内镜治疗方案。
1994年11月至2001年4月期间,39例有症状的肾盂憩室患者就诊,其中37例伴有结石。22例患者(56%)接受了PNL治疗,17例患者(44%)接受了URS治疗。在PNL组中,82%的患者需要进行新的肾盂切开术。PNL组结石平均大小为11.4×12.0mm,URS组为12.7×13.0mm(p>0.05)。疼痛、复发性尿路感染以及恶心和呕吐是两组患者的主要症状,其中疼痛是最常见的症状。PNL组平均住院时间为2.8天。所有URS手术均在当日手术基础上进行。比较了两组的结果,包括结石清除率、症状缓解率和并发症发生率。
URS组在6周随访时35%的患者症状消失,另有29%的患者报告疼痛有所改善,而PNL组在6周随访时86%的患者完全无症状。随访静脉肾盂造影显示,URS组只有19%的患者结石清除,而PNL组为78%(3例患者未返回进行随访影像学检查)。4例接受URS治疗的患者(24%)无法确定狭窄肾盂口的位置,7例患者(41%)最终接受了PNL治疗并最终成功。对于位于上极的憩室和直径<11mm的结石,PNL在结石清除效果上在统计学上优于URS(p<0.05)。URS组未发生并发症;然而,PNL术后有4例患者出现并发症。1例患者发生血块性尿潴留,需要留置导尿管并进行手动膀胱冲洗;1例患者出现大量出血,需要提前终止手术。2例患者出现胸腔内并发症,1例在第11肋以上穿刺后发生气胸,另1例发生血气胸。两者均通过胸腔闭式引流成功处理。
我们的研究清楚地表明,对于复杂的后位有症状的肾盂憩室,经皮治疗相对于输尿管镜检查具有优势,尽管并发症风险略有增加。因此,PNL应被视为处理这些复杂病情的主要方式。在无法通过导丝穿过狭窄肾盂口的情况下,进行新的肾盂切开术可确保进入集合系统并取得有效结果。