1 Department of Urology, General Hospital of Armed Police Forces of China , Beijing, China .
J Endourol. 2014 Jan;28(1):100-3. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0391. Epub 2013 Oct 4.
We compare the success rate and complications of retrograde ureteroscopy, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of large upper ureteral stones.
We retrospectively analyzed data from 73 patients with large (≥1 cm) upper ureteral stones at two institutions from January 2010 to May 2013. Twenty-two patients underwent retrograde ureteroscopy (group ULS), 30 patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (group PCNL), and 21 patients underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (group LS) for removal of upper ureteral stones. CT, intravenous urography, and ultrasound were performed 1 week and 1 month after surgical removal.
There were no significant differences in age, sex, or stone size among the three groups. Mean estimated blood loss and mean hospital stay showed a statistically significant difference among the three groups. Success rates in the PCNL, LS, and ULS groups were 100%, 90.5%, and 77.3%, respectively. The procedures of two patients in group LS were converted to open surgery because of the inability to find the ureteral stone in one patient and an adhesion too difficult to dissect in the other. The procedures of two patients in the ULS group were converted to LS, and those of three patients were converted to PCNL because of severe edema impaction at the site of the stone, a sharply angulated ureter obstruction, upward migration of the stone (seven patients), and intraoperative complications (two patients).
Percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for patients with large upper ureteral stones that has several advantages over retrograde ureteroscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Thus, percutaneous antegrade nephrolithotomy is recommended as a safe and good treatment option for large upper ureteral stones. A combined procedure (e.g., ureteral push-back and percutaneous removal) can be considered in some patients.
我们比较了逆行输尿管镜、腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术和经皮肾镜取石术治疗大上段输尿管结石的成功率和并发症。
我们回顾性分析了 2010 年 1 月至 2013 年 5 月在两家机构接受治疗的 73 例大(≥1cm)上段输尿管结石患者的数据。22 例患者接受逆行输尿管镜(ULS 组)治疗,30 例患者接受经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL 组)治疗,21 例患者接受腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术(LS 组)治疗。术后 1 周和 1 个月分别进行 CT、静脉尿路造影和超声检查。
三组患者的年龄、性别和结石大小无统计学差异。PCNL、LS 和 ULS 组的平均估计出血量和平均住院时间有统计学差异。PCNL、LS 和 ULS 组的成功率分别为 100%、90.5%和 77.3%。LS 组有 2 例患者的手术转为开放性手术,原因是 1 例患者找不到输尿管结石,另 1 例患者粘连难以分离。ULS 组有 2 例患者的手术转为 LS,3 例患者的手术转为 PCNL,原因是结石部位严重水肿嵌顿、输尿管严重成角梗阻、结石向上迁移(7 例)和术中并发症(2 例)。
经皮顺行肾结石取石术是一种安全有效的微创治疗大上段输尿管结石的方法,与逆行输尿管镜和腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术相比具有多种优势。因此,经皮顺行肾结石取石术推荐作为大上段输尿管结石的安全有效治疗方法。对于一些患者,可以考虑采用联合手术(如输尿管推送和经皮取出)。