• 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

输尿管镜与腹腔镜输尿管切开术治疗大近端输尿管结石:随机试验。

Ureteroscopy vs laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stone: a randomised trial.

机构信息

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.

出版信息

BJU Int. 2024 Nov;134(5):747-754. doi: 10.1111/bju.16494. Epub 2024 Jul 31.

DOI:10.1111/bju.16494
PMID:39082627
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) with retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) for large proximal ureteric stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective randomised trial was conducted from January 2018 through December 2022 including patients with impacted proximal ureteric stones of 15-25 mm. Patients underwent fURS or RLU. Primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Demographic data, stone features, and complications rates were also compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients were enrolled, 32 in each group. The mean impacted stone time was similar between groups, as well as stone size (17 mm) and stone density (>1000 Hounsfield Units). The ureteric stone-free rates between the two groups (93.7% in fURS vs 96.8% in RLU; odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.72 to 3.17; P = 0.554), and overall success rates, which take into account residual fragments in the kidney (84.3% in fURS vs 93.7% in RLU; OR 1.02, 95% CI -0.69 to 2.74; P = 0.23), were similar. Operative time was also not statistically significantly different between groups (median 80 vs 82 min; P = 0.101). There was no difference in hospital length of stay. Retropulsion rate was higher with fURS (65.6% vs 3.1%; p < 0.001). Residual hydronephrosis (34.3% each group) and complication rates did no differ according to treatment.

CONCLUSION

Flexible URS and RLU are both highly efficient and present low morbidity for large impacted proximal ureteric stone treatment. RLU is not superior to fURS.

摘要

目的

比较逆行软性输尿管镜(fURS)与后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术(RLU)治疗大近端输尿管结石的疗效。

患者与方法

本前瞻性随机试验于 2018 年 1 月至 2022 年 12 月进行,纳入有 15-25mm 大近端输尿管结石的患者。患者接受 fURS 或 RLU 治疗。主要结局是结石清除率。还比较了两组间的人口统计学资料、结石特征和并发症发生率。

结果

共纳入 64 例患者,每组 32 例。两组间嵌顿结石时间、结石大小(17mm)和结石密度(>1000 亨氏单位)相似。两组间输尿管结石清除率(fURS 为 93.7%,RLU 为 96.8%;优势比 [OR] 0.72,95%置信区间 [CI] -1.72 至 3.17;P=0.554)和总体成功率(考虑肾内残余碎片,fURS 为 84.3%,RLU 为 93.7%;OR 1.02,95%CI -0.69 至 2.74;P=0.23)相似。手术时间也无统计学差异(中位数 80 分钟对 82 分钟;P=0.101)。两组间住院时间无差异。fURS 的后推率更高(65.6%对 3.1%;p<0.001)。残余肾积水(每组 34.3%)和并发症发生率均与治疗方法无关。

结论

软性输尿管镜和后腹腔镜治疗大近端输尿管结石均高效、低并发症。RLU 并不优于 fURS。

相似文献

1
Ureteroscopy vs laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stone: a randomised trial.输尿管镜与腹腔镜输尿管切开术治疗大近端输尿管结石:随机试验。
BJU Int. 2024 Nov;134(5):747-754. doi: 10.1111/bju.16494. Epub 2024 Jul 31.
2
Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy, and mini-percutaneous antegrade flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for treating large (≥ 15 mm) impacted proximal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized trial.腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术、逆行软性输尿管镜取石术和微创经皮顺行软性输尿管镜碎石术治疗大(≥15mm)嵌顿性上段输尿管结石的比较:前瞻性随机试验。
Urolithiasis. 2024 Jul 22;52(1):107. doi: 10.1007/s00240-024-01602-2.
3
A comparison of antegrade percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones.顺行经皮与腹腔镜治疗输尿管上段结石的比较。
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:691946. doi: 10.1155/2014/691946. Epub 2014 Sep 11.
4
Comparison of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal and mid-ureter stones.输尿管镜下激光碎石术与腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术治疗输尿管上段及中段大结石的比较
Urol Int. 2015;94(2):205-9. doi: 10.1159/000368374. Epub 2015 Jan 29.
5
Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy as a primary modality for large proximal ureteral calculi: comparison to rigid ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy.腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术作为治疗大型近端输尿管结石的主要方式:与硬性输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术的比较
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011 Jan-Feb;21(1):7-13. doi: 10.1089/lap.2010.0340. Epub 2010 Dec 29.
6
Ultrathin semirigid retrograde ureteroscopy versus antegrade flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones 1-2 cm, a prospective randomized multicenter study.超微半刚性逆行输尿管镜与顺行软性输尿管镜治疗 1-2cm 近端输尿管结石:一项前瞻性随机多中心研究。
Urolithiasis. 2024 Sep 19;52(1):131. doi: 10.1007/s00240-024-01626-8.
7
Minimally Invasive Surgical Ureterolithotomy Versus Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Large Ureteric Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature.微创外科输尿管切开取石术与输尿管镜碎石术治疗大输尿管结石的比较:系统评价和文献荟萃分析。
Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Dec;3(6):554-566. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.006. Epub 2017 Apr 26.
8
Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; an equally effective and a sensible alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopy in the management of large ureteral stones in terms of effectivity and cost.腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术;在有效性和成本方面,对于大的输尿管结石的治疗,是一种与软性输尿管镜取石术同样有效的合理替代方法。
Arch Esp Urol. 2021 Jul;74(6):592-598. doi: 10.37554/en-20201213-3423-7.
9
Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of single upper ureteral calculi measuring 1 to 2 centimeters: a retrospective study.经皮肾镜取石术与软性输尿管肾镜术治疗1至2厘米单发性上段输尿管结石的比较:一项回顾性研究
BMC Urol. 2024 Jan 28;24(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12894-024-01408-9.
10
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.