• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.

DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2012.11.033
PMID:23290146
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。

相似文献

1
Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site ureterolithotomy versus conventional laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.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。
Urology. 2013 Mar;81(3):567-72. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.11.033. Epub 2013 Jan 3.
2
Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site ureterolithotomy versus conventional laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.腹膜后腹腔镜单孔输尿管切开取石术与传统腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术的比较
Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(5):865-8.
3
Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: a prospective randomized comparison study.经腹腔与经腹膜后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术:前瞻性随机比较研究。
J Urol. 2013 Mar;189(3):940-5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.114. Epub 2012 Sep 27.
4
Laparoscopic-endoscopic single-site surgery retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy: technique and initial experience.腹腔镜-内镜单孔手术治疗腹膜后输尿管结石:技术与初步经验
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2012 Dec;84(4):202-7.
5
Flexible Ureteroscopy versus Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones >15 mm: A Single Surgeon Experience.输尿管软镜与后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术治疗直径>15mm上段输尿管结石:单术者经验
Urol Int. 2016;96(1):77-82. doi: 10.1159/000430452. Epub 2015 May 20.
6
[Retroperitoneal laparoscopy for the management of lumbar ureter stones].[后腹腔镜治疗输尿管上段结石]
Prog Urol. 2008 May;18(5):281-7. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2008.03.027. Epub 2008 May 16.
7
Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy.前瞻性随机研究治疗大型上段输尿管结石:体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜碎石术与腹腔镜。
J Urol. 2012 Jan;187(1):164-8. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.054. Epub 2011 Nov 17.
8
Our experience with retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site ureterolithotomy.我们的腹膜后腹腔镜单切口输尿管切开取石术经验。
Urol Int. 2015;94(1):58-63. doi: 10.1159/000360425. Epub 2014 Aug 8.
9
Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site ureterolithotomy for upper ureteral stone disease.后腹腔镜单孔输尿管切开取石术治疗上段输尿管结石病
Scand J Urol. 2013 Dec;47(6):515-20. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2013.806585. Epub 2013 Jun 19.
10
[Endoscopic ureterolithotomy in large concrements of the upper third of the ureter].[输尿管上段大结石的内镜下输尿管取石术]
Urologiia. 2011 Sep-Oct(5):50-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site approach for renal cyst decortication - first experience and a review of literature.后腹腔镜单孔法肾囊肿去顶减压术——首例经验及文献综述
Clujul Med. 2018 Jul;91(3):346-350. doi: 10.15386/cjmed-953. Epub 2018 Jul 31.
2
Upper Tract Urological Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS).上尿路泌尿外科腹腔镜单孔手术(LESS)。
JSLS. 2015 Sep-Dec;19(4). doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2015.00081.
3
Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; which is better: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach?腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术;哪种方法更好:经腹腔途径还是腹膜后途径?
Turk J Urol. 2015 Dec;41(4):185-90. doi: 10.5152/tud.2015.03442.