Arrabal Martín Miguel, Gutiérrez Tejero Francisco, Ocete Martín Carolina, Esteban de Vera Hernando, Miján Ortiz José Luis, Zuluaga Gómez Armando
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario San Cecilio, Granada, España.
Arch Esp Urol. 2004 Jan-Feb;57(1):9-24.
More than 200 articles about treatment of staghorn calculi have been published over the last 15 years; we observe a progressive tendency to the elective indication of a combination of therapeutic methods. Recent development of flexible ureteroscopy and endoscopical holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy has prompted the application of a new method of combined treatment for staghorn calculi: retrograde ureteroscopy and external shock wave lithotripsy. The objective of this work is to analyze indications and results of various therapeutic methods in relation to staghorn calculi complexity.
We analyze the results of open surgery, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrostomy and retrograde ureteroscopy in the treatment of staghorn calculi Group 1 (soft calculi < 700 mm2 of area and homogeneous pyelocalyceal distribution), Group 2 (calculi < 700 mm2 hard or with predominantly central pyelocalyceal distribution, wide infundibula and calyces with few branches), Group 3 (calculi > 700 mm2 with predominantly central or homogeneous distribution, absence of infundibular stenosis or excluded calyces) and Group 4 (great lithiasic mass predominantly homogeneous or peripheral, narrow infundibula or multiple infundibular stenosis and/or lithiasis within excluded calyces).
In Group 1 staghorn calculi ESWL (JJ catheter + ESWL) has good results in 62.5% - 72.5% of the patients after an average of 3.2-3.6 sessions. The combination of contact lithotripsy by retrograde ureteroscopy and ESWL may be a therapeutic alternative. In group 2, percutaneous renal surgery may be considered the technique of choice; persisting residual fragments are treated by ESWL. Group 3 calculi are indication for combined therapy, percutaneous renal surgery and ESWL. ESWL therapy only is not indicated; open surgery through a sinus approach combined with intraoperative pyelocalyceal nephroscopy may be considered an option. Open surgery is recommended for Group 4 calculi--sinus approach is preferred--with mechanical extraction of caliceal fragments and/or pyelocalyceal nephroscopy support.
在过去15年里,已发表了200多篇关于鹿角形结石治疗的文章;我们观察到一种逐渐倾向于选择性联合应用多种治疗方法的趋势。软性输尿管镜和内镜钬激光碎石术的最新进展促使了一种治疗鹿角形结石的联合新方法的应用:逆行输尿管镜检查和体外冲击波碎石术。这项工作的目的是分析各种治疗方法相对于鹿角形结石复杂性的适应证和结果。
我们分析了开放手术、体外冲击波碎石术、经皮肾造瘘术和逆行输尿管镜检查在治疗鹿角形结石方面的结果,将结石分为四组:第1组(软性结石,面积<700 mm²且肾盂肾盏分布均匀),第2组(结石<700 mm²,质地硬或主要为中央肾盂肾盏分布,漏斗部和肾盏宽且分支少),第3组(结石>700 mm²,主要为中央或均匀分布,无漏斗部狭窄或排除肾盏),第4组(巨大结石块,主要为均匀或周边分布,漏斗部狭窄或多个漏斗部狭窄和/或排除肾盏内有结石)。
在第1组鹿角形结石中,平均经过3.2 - 3.6次治疗后,体外冲击波碎石术(双J导管+体外冲击波碎石术)在62.5% - 72.5%的患者中取得了良好效果。逆行输尿管镜接触碎石术与体外冲击波碎石术的联合可能是一种治疗选择。在第2组中,经皮肾手术可被视为首选技术;残留碎片通过体外冲击波碎石术治疗。第3组结石适合联合治疗,即经皮肾手术和体外冲击波碎石术。仅体外冲击波碎石术治疗不适用;通过窦道入路的开放手术结合术中肾盂肾盏肾镜检查可被视为一种选择。对于第4组结石,建议采用开放手术——首选窦道入路——机械取出肾盏碎片和/或肾盂肾盏肾镜检查辅助。