输尿管镜下阻挡网篮配合双频激光碎石术与ESWL治疗非复杂性输尿管上段结石疗效比较

目的：对体外震波碎石（ESWL）及输尿管镜下阻挡网篮配合双频激光碎石（URL）治疗非复杂性输尿管上段结石进行比较。探讨两种术式的疗效．方法：收治121例非复杂性输尿管上段结石病例。随机分两组．其中63例行ESWL-58例行URL,ESWL组采用多尼尔Cigma双定位体外冲击波碎石机,URL组采用Storz硬性输尿管镜,配用自制阻挡网篮,连接W．O．MU—100双频激光机后进行碎石,术后留置双J管。结果：两组在一次碎石成功率（ESWL93．7％、URI．93．1％）、术后1个月结石清除率（ESWI,90．4％．URI,93．1％）差异无统计学意义（P〈0．05）,治疗时间（ESWI．33．5±6．4、URL15．0±2．3）及术后1周结石清除率（ESWL69．8％、URL93．1％）URL组要优于ESWL组．差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。ESWI．组出现l例包膜下血肿。URL组出现1例输尿管穿孔．结论：对非复杂性输尿管上段结石的治疗,我们要根据患者具体情况及要求,科学地制定个体化治疗方案,以减少并发症。     

微创经皮肾镜取石术及输尿管镜碎石术治疗输尿管上段梗阻性结石的疗效比较

目的对比微创经皮肾镜取石术（MPCNL）及输尿管镜碎石术（URSL）治疗输尿管上段梗阻性结石的有效性及安全性。方法回顾性分析北京友谊医院自2006年12月至2008年9月共56例输尿管上段结石患者的临床资料,所有患者结石直径均大于1.5cm,分别行微创经皮肾镜取石术（MPCNL组）及输尿管镜碎石手术（URSL组）。对比两组之间手术时间,出血量,结石清除率,住院时间及术后并发症发生率。所有数据采用卡方检验。结果MPCNL组结石清除率为91．3％,URSL组为69．7％,两者之间有显著性差异（P〈0．05）,而手术时间、出血量、平均住院时间及术后并发症URSL组优于MPCNL组,两者之间有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。站论MPCNL对于治疗输尿管上段直径大于1．5cm梗阻性结石具有结石清除率高,并能同时治疗肾结石的优点,URSL则有更好的安全性。     

组合式输尿管软镜和经皮肾镜治疗〈2cm肾和输尿管上段结石的疗效比较

目的：比较组合式输尿管软镜（PolyScope）和经皮肾镜（PcNL）治疗〈2cm肾和输尿管上段结石的疗效。方法：分别采用输尿管软镜和经皮。肾镜取石术治疗〈2cm的肾和输尿管上段结石患者26例和47例,统计比较两种方法的手术时间、术后住院时间、并发症、住院费用及一次碎石成功率。结果：输尿管软镜组和经皮肾镜组的手术时间分别为（70．2±14．7）min和（49．2±11．9）min,术后住院时间分别为（3．7±1_1）d和（6．5±2．1）d,住院费用分别为（21318±1171）元和（13474±1428）元,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。经皮肾镜组有7例出现感染、出血等不同程度并发症,输尿管软镜组无明显并发症,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。输尿管软镜组一次碎石成功率为80．8％,经皮肾镜组为95．7％,两者差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。但对于下盏结石,前者一次碎石成功率仅44．4％,后者达88．2％,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：组合式输尿管软镜治疗〈2cm肾和输尿管上段结石,在并发症、住院时间上依然具有优势,但在处理肾下盏结石时,一次碎石成功率不如经皮肾镜。建议在术前对病例进行选择,。肾下盏漏斗肾盂角过小的下盏结石不宜选择输尿管软镜治疗。     

微创经皮肾镜碎石与输尿管镜碎石术治疗嵌顿性输尿管上段结石的疗效比较

目的：比较微创经皮肾镜碎石术（minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy ,MPCNL）与输尿管镜碎石术（ ureteroscopic lithotripsy ,URL）治疗嵌顿性输尿管上段结石的疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析2007年6月～2013年6月226例嵌顿性输尿管上段结石的临床资料,其中116例采用MPCNL治疗,110例采用URL治疗,比较两组结石清除率、手术时间、并发症发生率。结果 MPCNL组术后3 d结石清除率96．6％（112/116）,1个月后的结石清除率为99．1％（115/116）。URL组术后3 d结石清除率为47．3％（52/110）,49例残留结石＞0．4 cm,接受ESWL 治疗,1个月后结石清除率为83．6％（92/110）。结石清除率MPCNL组高于URL组（χ2＝68．873、17．619,P均＝0．000）。2组手术时间以及出血＞400 ml、发热和肾绞痛等并发症发生率差异无显著性（ P＞0．05）。结论 MPCNL治疗嵌顿性输尿管上段结石有很高的结石清除率;URL治疗效果稍差,而且需要结合ESWL治疗才能提高疗效。 MPCNL可作为嵌顿性输尿管上段结石的首选治疗方法。     

输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术与后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术治疗输尿管上段结石疗效的比较分析

目的：比较输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术与后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术治疗输尿管上段结石的疗效差异,探讨不同病情下治疗输尿管上段结石的最佳方法。方法回顾性分析2012年10月～2014年7月本院33例后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术和30例输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的患者的临床资料。比较两组患者的手术时间、术后住院天数、术后镇痛药使用次数、手术成功率、结石清除率及手术并发症等指标。结果与后腹腔镜组相比,输尿管镜组手术时间较短[（62．4±21．7）min vs（81．6±26．5） min],术后住院天数较短[（4．5±0．8）d vs（9．5±2．0）d],术后镇痛药使用次数较少[（1．6±0．2）次 vs（2．5±0．6）次],差异有统计学意义（ P ＜0．05）。而相比于输尿管镜组,后腹腔镜组手术成功率较高（100．0％ vs 90．0％）,结石清除率较高（100．0％vs 92．6％）,手术并发症发生率较低（3．0％ vs 10．0％）,差异有统计学意义（ P ＜0．05）。结论后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术与输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术在输尿管上段结石的治疗上各有优势,前者治愈率高,且术后并发症发生率低,对于包裹嵌顿的结石或其他治疗失败时更是不可替代的治疗方式;而输尿管镜下气压弹道碎石术创伤更小且恢复快,但手术成功率及结石清除率不及后腹腔镜手术,有时需其他治疗辅助。临床中应对不同情况的输尿管上段结石需综合考虑后采取相应合适的治疗方式。     

输尿管镜联合封堵器与微创经皮肾镜治疗输尿管上段嵌顿结石的疗效比较

目的：比较微创经皮肾镜取石术（ minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy ,MPCNL）与经尿道输尿管镜碎石（ ureteroscopic lithotripsy ,URL）联合封堵器治疗输尿管上段嵌顿结石的疗效。方法我院2011年4月～2013年7月收治单侧输尿管上段嵌顿结石89例,42例行MPCNL,47例行URL碎石。结果2组一次性碎石成功率分别为97．6％（41／42）、95．7％（45／47）,无统计学差异（χ2＝0．000,P＝1．000）;结石清除率分别为97．5％（40／41）、95．6％（43／45）,无统计学差异（χ2＝0．000,P＝1．000）;术后并发症发生率分别为7．1％（3／42）、8．5％（4／47）,无统计学差异（χ2＝0．000,P＝1．000）;手术时间分别为（80．2±11．9） min和（65．1±10．9） min,有统计学差异（ t＝6．248,P＝0．000）;住院时间分别为（7．3±1．5） d和（3．5±1．5）d,有统计学差异（t＝11．931,P＝0．000）。结论术中注意手术技巧,MPCNL与输尿管镜联合封堵器处理输尿管上段结石均可取得满意的效果。     

输尿管镜与后腹腔镜手术治疗输尿管上段结石的疗效比较

目的 比较输尿管镜碎石取石术与后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术治疗单侧输尿管上段结石的疗效,探讨两种术式的适应证及技术要点.方法 收治64例单侧输尿管上段结石患者,随机分成两组,32例行腰硬麻下输尿管镜钬激光碎石取石术,32例行气管全麻下后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术,两组术中均留置双J管,比较两组的手术时间、术后住院时间、结石清除率及手术并发症.结果 两组手术均取得成功,无一例中转开放手术.输尿管镜组与后腹腔镜组的平均手术时间为51.0±10.8 minVS 43.8±8.1 min(t=3.02,P=0.0037),住院时间为3.0±1.3 d VS 3.1t±0.9 d (t=-0.36,P=0.7217),一次手术结石清除率为87.5％ (28/32) VS 100％ (32/32),输尿管镜组术中4例发生结石上移,术后配合ESWL清除结石.两组术后随访3个月以上,未见输尿管狭窄等并发症.结论 对于单侧输尿管上段结石,后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术较输尿管镜碎石取石术一次手术结石清除率高,手术时间短,是一种安全、有效的方法.     

输尿管镜气压弹道与钬激光碎石治疗输尿管结石的临床分析

目的探讨输尿管镜气压弹道与钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管结石的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析我院自2003年1月至2010年12月采用输尿管镜气压弹道碎石治疗输尿管结石301例,钬激光碎石治疗输尿管结石114例的临床资料,比较其碎石效果、手术时间、术后住院时间及并发症发生率等。结果气压弹道碎石一次性粉碎率为98．0％（295／301）,一次性取净率为90．7％（273/301）,一侧手术平均时间56．7±15．2min,术后平均住院时间6.8±2.3d;钬激光碎石一次性粉碎率为99．1％（113/114）,一次性取净率为90．4％（103／114）,一侧手术平均时间47．4±13．7min,术后平均住院时间4．3±1．9d。两组均未见输尿管穿孔等并发症。钬激光碎石组手术平均时间及术后平均住院时间明显少于气压弹道碎石组。结石清除率无显著差异。结论输尿管镜气压弹道与钬激光碎石两种方式治疗输尿管结石均安全有效,但钬激光碎石效率更高,术后恢复更快。     

两种碎石方法在输尿管镜钬激光碎石术中的疗效比较

目的 比较两种不同碎石方法在输尿管镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管中下段结石中的疗效.方法 收治62例输尿管中下段结石患者,随机分成两组,均行输尿管镜钬激光碎石术;31例术中先尝试在输尿管镜直视下经结石周边缝隙逆行置入4F输尿管外支架管跨过结石,旁置持续注水行钬激光碎石(改良碎石组);31例找到结石后直接应用钬激光碎石(直接碎石组);比较两组的总手术时间、碎石时间、结石清除率、术中及术后并发症情况.结果 62例患者全部成功碎石,无一例中转为开放手术,两组术中均无输尿管穿孔、断裂等并发症发生.改良碎石组中有1例输尿管外支架管插管失败转为直接碎石法碎石.改良碎石组(n=30)与直接碎石组(n=31)的总手术时间分别为33.90±7.61 minVS 35.23±7.03 min (t=-0.71,P=0.48);碎石时间分别为8.93±3.29 min VS 12.13±2.68 min (t=-4.17,P=0.0001);结石清除率分别为100％ VS 96.77％,直接碎石组术中有1例结石上移至肾盂,术后采用体外冲击波碎石清除结石.两组患者术后均得到3个月～1年随访,超声复查均未见结石残留及输尿管狭窄等并发症发生.结论 术中应用输尿管外支架管旁置持续注水并不增加输尿管镜钬激光碎石术的总手术时间,可使激光碎石术野保持清晰,并有利于结石冲出,减少碎石及清石时间,疗效确切,有重要的临床应用价值.     

微创经皮肾取石和经尿道输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管上段结石的疗效比较

目的 比较微创经皮肾穿刺取石术与经尿道输尿管镜碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的方法。方法 从1996年6月到2004年6月，对202例单侧输尿管上段结石的患者，92例采用MPCNL进行治疗；110例采用URL治疗后，46例接受辅助的ESWL治疗。结果 MPCNL组术后3d结石清除率为94．6％（87／92），术后1个月结石清除率为100％（92／92）。URL术后3d结石清除率为20．9％（23／110），术后1个月的结石清除率为84．5（93／110），均显著低于MPCNL组（P〈0．05）。结论 微创经皮肾穿刺取石治疗嵌顿性输尿管上段结石有很高的结石清除率；经尿道输尿管镜手术治疗效果稍差，可以联合体外冲击波碎石来提高疗效。     

Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy

PURPOSE: We compared the safety and efficacy of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy with retrograde ureterolithotripsy for large impacted proximal ureter stones in a prospective randomized manner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 91 patients with large impacted proximal ureteral stones, defined as stones >1 cm in size located between the ureteropelvic junction and the lower border of the fourth lumbar vertebra, were prospectively randomized for antegrade (44) or retrograde (47) ureterolithotripsy. Failure of the procedure (conversion to an open procedure), intraoperative and postoperative morbidity, operative time, hospital stay, stone clearance at discharge home, and follow-up were analyzed in each group. RESULTS: The main complications were bleeding (2.3%; 1 of 43) for the antegrade procedure and ureteral injury (2.3%; 1 of 44) for the retrograde procedure. Percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy was associated with longer operative times (75.4+/-11.8 v 30.6+/-7.8 minutes; P<0.001), longer hospital stay (6.3+/-0.5 v 2.1+/-0.4 days; P<0.001), and a longer interval to return to normal activities (7.8+/-0.7 v 2.7+/-0.6 days; P<0.001). Nevertheless, the percutaneous antegrade procedure had a higher stone-free rate both at discharge home (95.3% v 79.5%; P=0.027), and 1 month post-procedure (100% v 86.4%; P=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy is a valuable treatment modality for impacted proximal ureteral calculi larger than 1 cm, and achieves higher stone-free rates than those of retrograde ureteroscopy with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy. The drawbacks of the antegrade procedure are longer operative time and hospital stay.     

逆行与顺行输尿管镜术处理输尿管上段嵌顿性结石的疗效比较

目的比较逆行与顺行输尿管镜术处理输尿管上段嵌顿性结石的疗效,并对其安全性与有效性进行评价。方法采用输尿管镜术共治疗输尿管上段嵌顿性结石246例,其中逆行经尿道入路治疗186例,顺行经皮肾微造瘘入路60例。结果逆行经尿道入路手术成功173例（93%）,平均手术时间35min,平均住院时间5d,无石率81.2%,22例需ESWL辅助治疗,出现手术并发症9例（4.8%）;顺行经皮肾微造瘘入路手术成功60例（100%）,平均手术时间55min,平均住院时间8d,无石率100%,无手术并发症发生。结论逆行与顺行输尿管镜术处理输尿管上段嵌顿性结石均有较高的手术成功率与术后无石率;顺行入路的安全性与有效性更好,但手术时间及住院时间更长。     

输尿管软镜治疗双侧上尿路结石一期与多期的疗效比较

目的探讨输尿管软镜治疗双侧上尿路结石一期与分期手术的临床疗效评估。方法收集本院2014年1月至2017年1月治疗的术前总肾功能正常的双侧上尿路结石患者,随机分为一期手术治疗患者43例(一期组),分期治疗患者55例(分期组);比较一期组同分期组患者总手术时间、总住院时间、结石清除率、并发症发生率、总费用。结果一期手术中转分期手术3例,术式改变率6.97%,分期手术均顺利完成手术;一期手术组总手术时间同分期手术组差异无统计学意义[(138.5±21.0)min vs.(128.6±27.3)min,P>0.05],一期组总住院时间较分期组总住院时间明显较短[(3.5±1.8)d vs.(7.6±3.5)d,P<0.05];两组患者分别于术后第4周复查泌尿系CT评估结石清除率分别为(84.73±3.51)%、(91.52±3.13)%。差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术后并发症发生率无统计学意义(P>0.05);总费用一期手术较分期手术节约1/3,存在明显差异。结论双侧上尿路结石输尿管软镜一期钬激光碎石术安全、有效,较分期治疗明显节约医疗成本,但需严格把握手术适应证。     

Ureteroscopic Stone Removal in the Distal Ureter. Why Change?

Purpose

We compared our experience with ureteroscopic stone basket manipulation under fluoroscopic guidance to ultrasound ureterolithotripsy for distal ureteral stone removal.

Materials and Methods

Retrospectively, we analyzed the medical records of 981 patients with ureteral calculi between January 1994 and December 1995, of whom 483 (49%) were treated for stones in the lower ureter and constituted our study group. The decision of when to perform lithotripsy (group 2) versus a basket procedure (group 1) was based on a prospective nonrandomized study and both groups were compared historically. All 322 patients in group 1 (mean age 49 years, range 14 to 86) primarily underwent ureteroscopic stone basket manipulation using the 4-wire Segura* basket. If the calculus could not be removed with the basket and another procedure was necessary, the case was considered a failure. The 161 patients in group 2 (mean age 37 years, range 14 to 74) underwent initially ultrasound ureterolithotripsy for stone fragmentation followed or not by removal of the fragments with the basket. Stone size did not differ significantly between groups 1 (mean 0.9 cm., range 0.6 to 1.7) and 2 (mean 0.8 cm., range 0.7 to 2.0). Ureteroscopy was performed in both groups with epidural anesthesia and on an outpatient basis in the majority of cases.*Van-tec, Spencer, Indiana.

Results

The stone-free rate after 1 procedure was 98.1 and 95.6% in groups 1 and 2, respectively. For group 2 versus group 1 the operative time was longer (mean 50, range 25 to 90 versus mean 19 minutes, range 11 to 40, respectively, p <0.001), the complication rate was greater (16.1 versus 4.3%, respectively, p <0.001) and average hospital stay was longer (2.1 versus 0.15 day, respectively, p <0.001).

Conclusions

Ureteroscopic stone treatment with basket manipulation under fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound ureterolithotripsy provided a high stone-free rate. However, stone removal with the basket manipulation technique should be considered the first choice for treatment of small distal ureteral calculi based on the minimal morbidity, and short operative and recovery times.     

Comparison of antegrade and retrograde ureterolithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundAntegrade percutaneous ureterolithotripsy (URSL) could be a treatment option for large and/or impacted proximal ureteral stones, which are difficult to treat. To review the current approach and treatment outcomes and to compare the efficacy of retrograde and antegrade URSL for large proximal ureteral stones, we evaluated the unique perspectives of both surgical modalities.MethodsThis systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed in July 2020. Articles on human studies and treatment of ureteral stones with URSL were extracted from the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Japan Medical Abstracts Society databases without any language restrictions. The risks of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) were assessed using the Cochrane risk of tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies- of Interventions tool, respectively.ResultsA total of 10 studies, including seven RCTs and three non-RCTs, were selected for the analysis; 433 and 420 cases underwent retrograde and antegrade URSL, respectively. The stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly higher in antegrade URSL than in retrograde URSL (SFR ratio: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12–1.22; P<0.001), while the hospital stay was significantly longer in antegrade URSL than in retrograde URSL (standardized mean difference: 2.56, 95% CI: 0.67–4.46; P=0.008). There were no significant differences in the operation time and the overall complication rate between the two approaches.ConclusionsDespite the heterogeneity of data and bias limitations, this latest evidence reflects real practice data, which may be useful for decision making.     

肾外型肾盂结石两种微创术式的临床特征比较

目的比较肾外型肾盂结石患者采用后腹腔镜肾盂切开取石术(RPL)和经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)治疗的有效性和安全性。方法回顾分析2016年1月至2019年6月在武警安徽省总队医院泌尿外科接受RPL和PCNL的肾外型肾盂结石患者临床资料,分别有36例和41例纳入研究。比较2组患者手术成功率、手术时间、术中出血量、手术前后血红蛋白下降值、结石完全清除率、术后平均住院天数、总治疗费用和并发症等临床特征。结果RPL组有34例手术成功,2例中转开放手术。PCNL组手术均成功。RPL组和PCNL组比较,平均手术时间[(99.0±4.7)min vs.(95.0±5.1)min,P>0.05];术中出血量[(35.0±4.0)mL vs.(120.3±18.9)mL,P<0.05];手术前后血红蛋白下降值[(0.5±0.1)g/L vs.(1.5±0.5)g/L,P<0.05];结石完全清除率[100%vs.(85.4%,35/41),P<0.05];术后平均住院天数[(8.3±0.7)d vs.(6.9±0.7)d,P>0.05];总治疗费用[(1.4±0.2)万元vs.(1.94±0.3)万元,P<0.05]。2组比较,术中出血量、手术前后血红蛋白下降值、结石完全清除率、总治疗费用差异有统计学意义。平均手术时间、术后平均住院天数差异无统计学意义。结论较之PCNL,RPL治疗肾外型肾盂结石更为安全有效,费用相对低廉,在减少术中、术后出血或严重感染上有积极作用,可同时处理合并的解剖畸形,推荐作为优先选择的微创手术方式。     

顺行与逆行输尿管镜下钬激光碎石术治疗合并感染的输尿管结石比较

目的 比较顺行经皮肾输尿管镜下与逆行经尿道输尿管镜下钬激光碎石取石术治疗合并感染的输尿管结石过程中手术时间、并发症、血清C反应蛋白浓度的改变等,为选择手术方式提供依据.方法 选择2008年4月至2010年10月在我院住院手术治疗的合并感染的输尿管结石患者102例,根据手术适应证分组,45例接受经皮肾输尿管镜取石术,57例接受经尿道输尿管镜取石术.术前、术中、术后检查记录手术时间、住院时间、并发症等指标,并分别于术前第1天,手术后24h测定血清C反应蛋白含量,比较两组间有无差异.结果 两组患者在性别、年龄、结石大小、病程长短等方面无明显差异(P＞0.05);顺行经皮肾微造瘘组的手术成功率、一期结石清除率高于逆行手术组(P＜0.05),并发症发生率两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),PCNL组平均手术时间及住院时间较长(P＜0.05).术前两组血清CRP含量无差异,术后24h有明显差异(P＜0.05),顺行组较逆行组明显减少.结论 对于合并感染的输尿管结石的治疗,经皮肾输尿管镜取石术对机体全身的影响低于经尿道输尿管镜取石术,治疗方式的选择主要取决于结石的部位,对于第四腰椎平面以上的输尿管上段结石PCNL术更安全有效.     

Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy

Objective

To provide appropriate evidence for treatment planning of patients with an impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥1.5 cm in size, by analyzing the therapeutic outcomes for those undergoing minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy and retrograde ureterolithotripsy.

Patients and methods

From September 2010 to November 2011, eligible patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones ≥1.5 cm in size referred to our institute were considered for this study. The closed envelope method was used to randomize the enrolled patients to mini-PCNL (30) or retrograde ureterolithotripsy (29). The efficiency quotient (EQ) was calculated to specifically address the efficiency for both the techniques. All preoperative and postoperative data for both groups were recorded.

Results

The initial stone-free rate was 93.3 % in the mini-PCNL group and 41.4 % in the URSL group (p < 0.001). However, the overall stone-free rate at the 1-month follow-up visit after initial treatment was 100 % in the mini-PCNL group and 89.7 % in the URSL group (p = 0.07). The EQs for the mini-PCNL and URSL groups were 0.83 and 0.50, respectively.

Conclusions

Our study shows that mini-PCNL removal of large impacted proximal ureteral calculi can achieve higher stone-free rates and safe.     

微通道经皮肾镜与逆行性输尿管软镜碎石术治疗直径<2.0 cm肾下盏结石的效果分析

目的 探讨微通道经皮肾镜碎石术（mPCNL）与逆行性输尿管软镜碎石术治疗直径<2.0 cm肾下盏结石的效果。方法 选取2015年1月至2017年10月在本院行肾结石碎石手术的105例直径<2.0 cm的肾下盏结石患者,其中45例采用逆行性输尿管软镜碎石术治疗（A组）,另外60例患者采用mPCNL治疗（B组）。对比两组患者的一期结石清除率、总结石清除率、手术时间、手术出血量、住院时间及手术并发症发生率;对比两组患者术前、术后24 h的血清白细胞介素-6（IL-6）、白细胞介素-10（IL-10）、C反应蛋白（CRP）和白细胞（WBC）等指标。结果 B组患者的一期结石清除率、手术时间、手术出血量均低于A组（P<0.05）,但总结石清除率与A组比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;B组的住院时间长于A组（P<0.05）;术前,两组患者的IL-6、IL-10、CRP、WBC水平比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;术后24 h,B组患者的IL-6、IL-10、CRP、WBC水平均显著高于A组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;B组患者的并发症发生率[10.00%（6/60）]与A组[15.56%（7/45）]比较,差异无统计学意义（P=0.392）。结论 mPCNL与逆行性输尿管软镜碎石术治疗直径<4.0 cm肾下盏结石患者的效果差异不大,且mPCNL手术引起的炎症应激反应更小,手术创伤更小。     

Cost-effective treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a decision tree analysis

PURPOSE: We determined the optimal treatment for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction based on cost using a decision tree model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for articles addressing surgical correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction was performed and data were abstracted on operative time, hospital stay, complications and success rate. The overall cost and individual cost centers at our institution for antegrade endopyelotomy, retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy, Acucise (Applied Medical Resources, Laguna Hills, California) endopyelotomy, laparoscopic pyeloplasty and open pyeloplasty were compared. A decision tree model estimated the cost of treatment and followup for each modality using commercially available software. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of individual treatment variables on overall cost. RESULTS: Based on cost center review retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy was the least costly procedure ($2,891). In the decision tree model the rank order of overall treatment costs was: retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy ($3,842), Acucise endopyelotomy ($4,427), antegrade endopyelotomy ($5,297), laparoscopic pyeloplasty ($7,026) and open pyeloplasty ($7,119). Despite various hospital stay, operative time, equipment cost and success rate data 1-way sensitivity analysis revealed that antegrade endopyelotomy, laparoscopic pyeloplasty and open pyeloplasty were never cost effective compared with retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy or Acucise endopyelotomy, while 2-way sensitivity analysis favored retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Primary cost variables for ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatments include operative time, hospital stay, equipment cost and success rate. Decision tree analysis showed that retrograde ureteroscopic or Acucise endopyelotomy is the most cost-effective treatment modality at our institution. However, cost is only 1 of a number of factors that are considered when deciding on an optimal course of treatment.