Suppr超能文献

后腹腔镜单部位与传统腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术治疗输尿管上段结石的疗效比较。

Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site ureterolithotomy versus conventional laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Bakırkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

出版信息

Urology. 2013 Mar;81(3):567-72. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.11.033. Epub 2013 Jan 3.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes of conventional laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (CL-RU) and retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single site retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LESS-RU) for large, impacted upper ureteral stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2010, 65 patients underwent conventional or LESS ureterolithotomy. CL-RU was performed in 42 patients. These patients were compared with the remaining 23 patients who underwent LESS-RU. Indications for the operations were obstructive or impacted ureteral stones larger than 15 mm in the middle or upper part of the ureter. The following parameters of CL-RU were compared with the LESS-RU: operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, duration of analgesia, postoperative pain, hospitalization time, and time to return to normal activities.

RESULTS

No difference was observed between the below-mentioned, respective parameters of CL-RU and LESS-RU groups: mean operative time (74.1 vs 69.9 min, P = .54), blood loss (54.9 vs 56.1 mL, P = .49), transfusion rates (0% for both), and hospitalization time (3.1 vs 2.9 days, P = .61). Duration of analgesia in patients who underwent CL-RU was longer than those who underwent LESS-RU (5.2 vs 2.4 days, P = .001). Time to return to normal activities in CL-RU patients was also longer than LESS-RU patients (9.7 vs 6.4 days, P = .001). Compared to CL-RU, mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were lower during postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 in LESS-RU patients. Urine leakage was observed in 2 cases in each group.

CONCLUSION

LESS ureterolithotomy performed by adopting the retroperitoneal approach seems to be a safe, reliable, and minimally invasive procedure after failed shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy (URS). Naturally, further prospective, randomized, and controlled studies on large samples are needed to test the effectiveness of this approach.

摘要

目的

评估传统腹腔镜后腹腔镜输尿管切开术(CL-RU)和后腹腔镜经皮肾镜输尿管切开术(LESS-RU)治疗大、嵌顿性上段输尿管结石的效果。

患者和方法

2008 年 1 月至 2010 年 12 月,65 例患者接受了常规或 LESS 输尿管切开术。42 例患者接受了 CL-RU。将这些患者与其余 23 例接受 LESS-RU 的患者进行比较。手术指征为梗阻性或嵌顿性输尿管结石,位于输尿管中段或上段,直径大于 15mm。比较 CL-RU 与 LESS-RU 的以下参数:手术时间、出血量、输血率、镇痛持续时间、术后疼痛、住院时间和恢复正常活动时间。

结果

CL-RU 和 LESS-RU 组的以下参数无差异:平均手术时间(74.1 分钟比 69.9 分钟,P =.54)、出血量(54.9 毫升比 56.1 毫升,P =.49)、输血率(均为 0%)和住院时间(3.1 天比 2.9 天,P =.61)。CL-RU 组患者的镇痛持续时间长于 LESS-RU 组(5.2 天比 2.4 天,P =.001)。CL-RU 组患者恢复正常活动的时间也长于 LESS-RU 组(9.7 天比 6.4 天,P =.001)。与 CL-RU 相比,LESS-RU 患者术后第 1、2、3 天的平均视觉模拟评分(VAS)均较低。两组各有 2 例发生尿漏。

结论

对于体外冲击波碎石术或输尿管镜(URS)治疗失败的患者,经后腹腔镜途径行 LESS 输尿管切开术似乎是一种安全、可靠和微创的方法。当然,需要进一步进行大样本、前瞻性、随机对照研究来验证这种方法的有效性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验