Suppr超能文献

输尿管结石梗阻和感染时肾脏集合系统紧急减压的最佳方法。

Optimal method of urgent decompression of the collecting system for obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi.

作者信息

Pearle M S, Pierce H L, Miller G L, Summa J A, Mutz J M, Petty B A, Roehrborn C G, Kryger J V, Nakada S Y

机构信息

Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.

出版信息

J Urol. 1998 Oct;160(4):1260-4.

PMID:9751331
Abstract

PURPOSE

We compare the efficacy of percutaneous nephrostomy with retrograde ureteral catheterization for renal drainage in cases of obstruction and infection associated with ureteral calculi.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We randomized 42 consecutive patients presenting with obstructing ureteral calculi and clinical signs of infection (temperature greater than 38 C and/or white blood count greater than 17,000/mm.3) to drainage with percutaneous nephrostomy or retrograde ureteral catheterization. Preoperative patient and stone characteristics, procedural parameters, clinical outcomes and costs were assessed for each group.

RESULTS

Urine cultures obtained at drainage were positive in 62.9% of percutaneous nephrostomy and 19.1% of retrograde ureteral catheterization patients. There was no significant difference in the time to treatment between the 2 groups. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were significantly shorter in the retrograde ureteral catheterization (32.7 and 5.1 minutes, respectively) compared with the percutaneous nephrostomy (49.2 and 7.7 minutes, respectively) group. One treatment failure occurred in the percutaneous nephrostomy group, which was successfully salvaged with retrograde ureteral catheterization. Time to normal temperature was 2.3 days in the percutaneous nephrostomy and 2.6 in the retrograde ureteral catheterization group, and time to normal white blood count was 2 days in the percutaneous nephrostomy and 1.7 days in the retrograde ureteral catheterization group (p not significant). Length of stay was 4.5 days in the percutaneous nephrostomy group compared with 3.2 days in the retrograde ureteral catheterization group (p not significant). Cost analysis revealed that retrograde ureteral catheterization was twice as costly as percutaneous nephrostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrograde ureteral catheterization and percutaneous nephrostomy effectively relieve obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi. Neither modality demonstrated superiority in promoting a more rapid recovery after drainage. Percutaneous nephrostomy is less costly than retrograde ureteral catheterization. The decision of which mode of drainage to use may be based on logistical factors, surgeon preference and stone characteristics.

摘要

目的

我们比较经皮肾造瘘术与逆行输尿管插管术在输尿管结石合并梗阻和感染病例中进行肾引流的疗效。

材料与方法

我们将42例连续出现输尿管结石梗阻且有感染临床体征(体温高于38℃和/或白细胞计数高于17,000/mm³)的患者随机分为经皮肾造瘘术引流组或逆行输尿管插管术引流组。对每组患者术前的患者及结石特征、手术参数、临床结局和费用进行评估。

结果

引流时获得的尿培养结果显示,经皮肾造瘘术患者中62.9%呈阳性,逆行输尿管插管术患者中19.1%呈阳性。两组之间的治疗时间无显著差异。与经皮肾造瘘术组(分别为49.2分钟和7.7分钟)相比,逆行输尿管插管术的手术时间和透视时间显著更短(分别为32.7分钟和5.1分钟)。经皮肾造瘘术组发生1例治疗失败,经逆行输尿管插管术成功挽救。经皮肾造瘘术组体温恢复正常的时间为2.3天,逆行输尿管插管术组为2.6天;经皮肾造瘘术组白细胞计数恢复正常的时间为2天,逆行输尿管插管术组为1.7天(p值无统计学意义)。经皮肾造瘘术组的住院时间为4.5天,逆行输尿管插管术组为3.2天(p值无统计学意义)。成本分析显示,逆行输尿管插管术的费用是经皮肾造瘘术的两倍。

结论

逆行输尿管插管术和经皮肾造瘘术均可有效缓解输尿管结石所致的梗阻和感染。两种方式在引流后促进更快恢复方面均未显示出优势。经皮肾造瘘术的费用低于逆行输尿管插管术。选择何种引流方式可基于后勤因素、外科医生偏好和结石特征来决定。

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