Suppr超能文献

使用环形输尿管导管与输尿管镜治疗远端小输尿管结石的回顾性比较——547例连续患者的研究

Stone extraction with loop ureteral catheter versus ureteroscopy in small distal ureteral stones-retrospective comparison of 547 consecutive patients.

作者信息

Rehme Christian, Burchert Carolin, Tosun Mustafa, Szarvas Tibor, Nagy Nadine, Ruebben Herbert, Hadaschik Boris, Niedworok Christian

机构信息

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

Department of Urology, Hermann-Josef Hospital Erkelenz, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

出版信息

Transl Androl Urol. 2021 Jan;10(1):87-95. doi: 10.21037/tau-20-909.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To evaluate whether stone extraction with a loop ureteral catheter (LUC) in distal ureteral stones is associated with a higher frequency of ureteral strictures compared to treatment with primary ureteroscopic stone removal (p-URS) or ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (l-URS).

METHODS

Five hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients were primarily endourologically treated for distal ureteral stones in our department between 2005 and 2019 and included in the study protocol. Data was retrospectively obtained from the patients' charts and medical reports as well as from office-based urologists. Data analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney test or Student's -test as appropriate. A level of P<0.05 was assigned statistical significance.

RESULTS

Four hundred and twelve patients were treated by URS (p-URS n=304, l-URS n=108) and another 135 by LUC stone extraction. Median follow-up was 41 [2-159] months. There was no difference between the groups concerning age, gender, proportion of patients with ureteral stenting, operating time, hospitalization or readmission rates. The number of ureteric strictures was small in all procedures [n=3 (1.0%) in p-URS, n=2 (1.9%) in l-URS and n=2 (1.5%) in LUC] and there was no difference between the groups concerning this serious complication (p-URS LUC: P=0.6465; l-URS LUC: P=0.9999).

CONCLUSIONS

In small distal stones, LUC stone extraction still is an alternative to URS procedures in stone management with comparable results concerning postinterventional ureteral strictures. In experienced hands, it still has its value in accurately selected patients.

摘要

背景

评估与采用一期输尿管镜下取石术(p-URS)或输尿管镜激光碎石术(l-URS)治疗相比,使用环形输尿管导管(LUC)取出远端输尿管结石是否会导致输尿管狭窄的发生率更高。

方法

2005年至2019年期间,在我们科室对547例连续性远端输尿管结石患者进行了初次腔内泌尿外科治疗,并纳入研究方案。数据通过回顾性方式从患者病历、医疗报告以及门诊泌尿外科医生处获取。根据情况使用Fisher精确检验、Mann-Whitney检验或Student t检验进行数据分析。P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。

结果

412例患者接受了URS治疗(p-URS组304例,l-URS组108例),另有135例接受了LUC取石术。中位随访时间为41[2-159]个月。在年龄、性别、输尿管支架置入患者比例、手术时间、住院率或再入院率方面,各组之间没有差异。所有手术中输尿管狭窄的数量都很少[p-URS组3例(1.0%),l-URS组2例(1.9%),LUC组2例(1.5%)],在这种严重并发症方面,各组之间没有差异(p-URS与LUC比较:P=0.6465;l-URS与LUC比较:P=0.9999)。

结论

对于小的远端结石,在结石处理中,LUC取石术仍是URS手术的一种替代方法,在介入后输尿管狭窄方面结果相当。在经验丰富的医生手中,它在准确选择的患者中仍有价值。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7404/7844532/68f4fadc3f41/tau-10-01-87-f1.jpg

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