Suppr超能文献

经皮肾镜取石术中球囊扩张器与Amplatz扩张器的比较:一项回顾性评估

A comparison of balloon and amplatz dilators in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective evaluation.

作者信息

Özçift Burak, Bal Kaan, Dinçel Çetin

机构信息

Department of Urology, Hakkari State Hospital, Hakkari, Turkey.

Department of Urology, İzmir Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey.

出版信息

Turk J Urol. 2013 Dec;39(4):226-31. doi: 10.5152/tud.2013.058.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we compared our experience using balloon and amplatz dilatation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We also evaluated peri- and postoperative variables, including success rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hundred renal stone patients (123 men/77 women) underwent PCNL at the Urology Clinic of İzmir Atatürk Training and Research Hospital from September 2005 to May 2011. The nephrostomy tract was dilated using a balloon (128 patients) or amplatz (72 patients) dilator. The groups were compared by age, total operating time, treatment success rate, retreatment rate, pre- and postoperative hematocrit values, mean decrease in hematocrit values, blood transfusion rate, stone burden, tract dilatation failure, hospital stay and nephrostomy removal times, stone localization, previous stone operation and the cost of the dilatation system.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the operative time (97.9±45.3 minutes in balloon group vs. 98.5±43.4 minutes in the amplatz group; p=0.43), preoperative hematocrit value (39.04±4.21 vs. 38.94±4.49; p=0.87), postoperative hematocrit value (32.74±4.86 vs. 32.48±5.43; p=0.73), decrease in hematocrit values (6.30±2.60 vs. 6.45±2.64; p=0.68), blood transfusion rate (15.6% vs. 16.7%; p=0.84) or treatment success rate (78.9% vs. 79.2%; p=0.96) between balloon and amplatz groups. Differences in other variables were also not observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The balloon or amplatz dilatation methods have similar results with regard to efficacy, speed, and safety. However, the cost of the balloon dilator is higher than that of the amplatz dilator.

摘要

目的

在本研究中,我们比较了在经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)中使用球囊扩张和安普拉斯扩张的经验。我们还评估了围手术期和术后的变量,包括成功率。

材料与方法

2005年9月至2011年5月期间,200例肾结石患者(123例男性/77例女性)在伊兹密尔阿塔图尔克培训与研究医院泌尿外科接受了PCNL。使用球囊(128例患者)或安普拉斯(72例患者)扩张器扩张肾造瘘通道。通过年龄、总手术时间、治疗成功率、再次治疗率、术前和术后血细胞比容值、血细胞比容值的平均下降幅度、输血率、结石负荷、通道扩张失败率、住院时间和肾造瘘移除时间、结石定位、既往结石手术以及扩张系统的成本对两组进行比较。

结果

球囊组和安普拉斯组在手术时间(球囊组97.9±45.3分钟,安普拉斯组98.5±43.4分钟;p=0.43)、术前血细胞比容值(39.04±4.21对38.94±4.49;p=0.87)、术后血细胞比容值(32.74±4.86对32.48±5.43;p=0.73)、血细胞比容值下降幅度(6.30±2.60对6.45±2.64;p=0.68)、输血率(15.6%对16.7%;p=0.84)或治疗成功率(78.9%对79.2%;p=0.96)方面均无统计学显著差异。两组在其他变量上也未观察到差异。

结论

球囊扩张或安普拉斯扩张方法在疗效、速度和安全性方面结果相似。然而,球囊扩张器成本高于安普拉斯扩张器。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

6
Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.经皮肾镜取石术的并发症
Eur Urol. 2007 Apr;51(4):899-906; discussion 906. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.020. Epub 2006 Oct 25.
8
A novel single step percutaneous access sheath: the initial human experience.
J Urol. 2006 Jan;175(1):156-61. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00020-0.

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