• 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

超级肥胖患者的经皮肾镜取石术:基于体重指数的疗效比较

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Superobese: A Comparison of Outcomes Based on Body Mass Index.

作者信息

Dauw Casey A, Borofsky Michael S, York Nadya, Lingeman James E

机构信息

Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine , Indianapolis, Indiana.

出版信息

J Endourol. 2016 Sep;30(9):987-91. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0437. Epub 2016 Aug 22.

DOI:10.1089/end.2016.0437
PMID:27440484
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5583555/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered the gold standard for treatment of large renal calculi. Although several investigators have examined the feasibility and outcomes associated with PCNL in obese patients, these studies have been limited by small sample size, lack of a comparator group, or few patients at body mass index (BMI) extremes. We thus compared outcomes of superobese (BMI >50) patients undergoing PCNL vs both an "overweight" and "ideal" cohort.

METHODS

We used a prospectively maintained database to identify ideal (BMI 18.5-25), overweight (BMI 25.1-49.9), and superobese (BMI ≥50) patients who underwent PCNL. Our primary objective was to compare surgical outcomes between groups measured by the percent of patients who required secondary PCNL. We then compared complication rates, need for transfusion, and length of stay (LOS) using chi-square testing and ANOVA where appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 1152 patients were identified of which 254 were classified as ideal, 840 as overweight, and 58 as superobese. The overweight cohort had a higher mean age and greater proportion of males, whereas staghorn stones were more common in the superobese group. Comorbid conditions were more commonly observed in the superobese cohort. Otherwise, the groups were similar. Surgical outcomes were comparable with 47.2%, 42.0%, and 38.0% of ideal, overweight, and superobese patients requiring secondary PCNL (p = 0.25) with no difference in complication rates, need for transfusion, or LOS.

CONCLUSION

PCNL can be effectively and safely performed in superobese patients with no difference in surgical outcomes or complications when compared to ideal or overweight patient cohorts.

摘要

引言

经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)被认为是治疗大型肾结石的金标准。尽管有几位研究者探讨了PCNL在肥胖患者中的可行性和治疗效果,但这些研究存在样本量小、缺乏对照组或体重指数(BMI)处于极端值的患者数量少等局限性。因此,我们比较了接受PCNL的超级肥胖(BMI>50)患者与“超重”和“理想”队列患者的治疗效果。

方法

我们使用一个前瞻性维护的数据库,识别接受PCNL的理想体重(BMI 18.5-25)、超重(BMI 25.1-49.9)和超级肥胖(BMI≥50)患者。我们的主要目标是比较各组之间的手术效果,以需要二次PCNL的患者百分比来衡量。然后,我们在适当的情况下使用卡方检验和方差分析比较并发症发生率、输血需求和住院时间(LOS)。

结果

共识别出1152例患者,其中254例被归类为理想体重,840例为超重,58例为超级肥胖。超重队列的平均年龄较高,男性比例较大,而鹿角形结石在超级肥胖组中更为常见。超级肥胖队列中合并症更为常见。除此之外,各组相似。手术效果相当,理想体重、超重和超级肥胖患者中分别有47.2%、42.0%和38.0%需要二次PCNL(p = 0.25),并发症发生率、输血需求或住院时间无差异。

结论

与理想体重或超重患者队列相比,PCNL可以在超级肥胖患者中有效且安全地进行,手术效果或并发症无差异。

相似文献

1
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Superobese: A Comparison of Outcomes Based on Body Mass Index.超级肥胖患者的经皮肾镜取石术:基于体重指数的疗效比较
J Endourol. 2016 Sep;30(9):987-91. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0437. Epub 2016 Aug 22.
2
Does body mass index impact the outcomes of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy?体重指数是否影响无管经皮肾镜取石术的结局?
BJU Int. 2014 Sep;114(3):404-11. doi: 10.1111/bju.12538. Epub 2014 Feb 20.
3
A comparison of outcomes after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children and adults: a matched cohort study.儿童与成人经皮肾镜取石术后结局的比较:一项匹配队列研究。
J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Oct;11(5):250.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.04.002. Epub 2015 Apr 24.
4
Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: outcomes with expanded indications.无管经皮肾镜取石术:扩展适应证的结果。
Int Braz J Urol. 2014 Mar-Apr;40(2):204-11. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.02.10.
5
Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial.完全无管经皮肾镜取石术与标准经皮肾镜取石术治疗肾结石的比较:一项随机临床试验
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2016;49(4):e4878. doi: 10.1590/1414-431X20154878. Epub 2016 Mar 18.
6
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in super obese patients (body mass index ≥ 50 kg/m²): overcoming the challenges.超级肥胖患者(体重指数≥50 kg/m²)的经皮肾镜取石术:克服挑战
BJU Int. 2016 Feb;117(2):300-6. doi: 10.1111/bju.13155. Epub 2015 Jun 6.
7
Outcomes following 'mini' percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi in children. A single-centre study.儿童肾结石“迷你”经皮肾镜取石术的术后结果。一项单中心研究。
J Pediatr Urol. 2015 Jun;11(3):120.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.09.008. Epub 2015 Mar 7.
8
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complex renal calculi: is multi-tract approach ok?经皮肾镜取石术治疗复杂性肾结石:多通道入路可行吗?
Can J Urol. 2012 Aug;19(4):6360-5.
9
Obesity in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Is body mass index really important?经皮肾镜取石术中的肥胖问题。体重指数真的重要吗?
Urology. 2014 Sep;84(3):538-43. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.03.062.
10
Outcome of percutaneous surgery stratified according to body mass index and kidney stone size.根据体重指数和肾结石大小分层的经皮手术结果。
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2007 Jun;17(3):179-83. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e318051543d.

引用本文的文献

1
Are very thin patients at a higher risk of complications when submitted to percutane-ous nephrolithotomy?非常瘦的患者行经皮肾镜碎石取石术时是否有更高的并发症风险?
Int Braz J Urol. 2024 Nov-Dec;50(6):746-753. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0341.
2
Mini and Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Obese Patients. Results from a Single-surgeon Large Series.肥胖患者的微创与标准经皮肾镜取石术。单术者大样本系列研究结果
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024 Apr 4;63:113-118. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.03.011. eCollection 2024 May.
3
Costs variations for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the U.S. from 2003-2015: A contemporary analysis of an all-payer discharge database.2003年至2015年美国经皮肾镜取石术的成本变化:对全支付方出院数据库的当代分析。
Can Urol Assoc J. 2018 Dec;12(12):407-414. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.5280.

本文引用的文献

1
Is Ureteroscopy as Good as We Think?输尿管镜检查真如我们所想的那么好吗?
J Urol. 2016 Apr;195(4 Pt 1):823-4. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.061. Epub 2016 Jan 22.
2
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Patients With BMI >50: Single Surgeon Outcomes and Feasibility.体重指数>50的患者行经皮肾镜取石术:单名外科医生的手术结果及可行性
Urology. 2016 Jan;87:33-9. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.071. Epub 2015 Oct 9.
3
Outcomes of Systematic Review of Ureteroscopy for Stone Disease in the Obese and Morbidly Obese Population.肥胖和病态肥胖人群输尿管镜治疗结石病的系统评价结果
J Endourol. 2016 Feb;30(2):135-45. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0547. Epub 2015 Oct 9.
4
Contemporary Practice Patterns of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treating Renal Stones: Results of a Worldwide Survey.当代软性输尿管镜治疗肾结石的实践模式:一项全球调查结果
J Endourol. 2015 Nov;29(11):1221-30. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0260. Epub 2015 Aug 21.
5
Does Peak Inspiratory Pressure Increase in the Prone Position? An Analysis Related to Body Mass Index.俯卧位时吸气峰压会升高吗?一项与体重指数相关的分析。
J Urol. 2015 Nov;194(5):1302-6. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.05.015. Epub 2015 May 15.
6
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in super obese patients (body mass index ≥ 50 kg/m²): overcoming the challenges.超级肥胖患者(体重指数≥50 kg/m²)的经皮肾镜取石术:克服挑战
BJU Int. 2016 Feb;117(2):300-6. doi: 10.1111/bju.13155. Epub 2015 Jun 6.
7
Vascular complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: 10 years of experience.经皮肾镜取石术后的血管并发症:十年经验
Urology. 2015 Apr;85(4):777-81. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.044. Epub 2015 Feb 19.
8
Comparative study of the treatment of renal stones with flexible ureterorenoscopy in normal weight, obese, and morbidly obese patients.正常体重、肥胖和病态肥胖患者输尿管软镜治疗肾结石的对比研究
Urology. 2015 Jan;85(1):38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.08.028. Epub 2014 Oct 29.
9
Determinants of nephrostomy tube dislodgment after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.经皮肾镜取石术后肾造瘘管移位的决定因素。
J Endourol. 2015 Mar;29(3):289-92. doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0387. Epub 2014 Dec 17.
10
The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: Outcomes in the morbidly obese patient - a case control analysis.腔内泌尿外科协会经皮肾镜取石术全球研究临床研究办公室:肥胖患者的治疗结果——一项病例对照分析
Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 May;8(5-6):E393-7. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2258.