经皮肾镜气压弹道碎石术治疗肾结石的护理

经皮肾镜气压弹道碎石术（PCNL）是治疗肾结石的有效手段。手术过程中出血少．结石清除率高，对肾脏影响很小，逐步取代了传统的开放手术，成为肾蛄石的主要治疗方法。2010年1月~2011年6月，我科应用PCNL治疗肾结石52例，效果满意。现将结果报告如下。     

螺旋状套石篮辅助输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术治疗单侧直径大于1厘米输尿管上段结石临床研究

目的探讨螺旋状套石篮辅助输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术(FURL)治疗单侧直径1.0 cm输尿管上段结石临床疗效及安全性。方法研究对象选取该院2012年1月-2015年12月收治的单侧直径1.0 cm输尿管上段结石患者共140例,以随机抽签法分为对照组(70例)和观察组(70例),分别采用FURL术单用和在此基础上加用螺旋状套石篮辅助治疗;比较两组患者围手术期临床指标、碎石成功率、结石清除率、结石上移率及术后并发症发生率等。结果观察组患者手术时间明显长于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);两组患者术中出血量和住院时间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);观察组患者碎石成功率和结石清除率均明显高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);观察组患者结石上移率明显低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);同时两组患者术后并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论螺旋状套石篮辅助FURL术治疗单侧直径1.0 cm输尿管上段结石可有效提高结石清除效果,降低结石上移风险,且未增加术后并发症发生概率。     

腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术后并发胆瘘的观察及护理

腹腔镜胆总管切开取石术( Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration,LCBDE)是微创胆道外科具有重要意义的一项新技术,也是目前治疗胆总管结石最常用的手术方式之一[1].胆瘘常常发生在胆道或胆道邻近脏器的外科手术之后,多在手术后早期出现,起病急骤,不具备瘘管,只有胆汁漏出.胆瘘是LCBDE严重的并发症之一,一旦发生,处理不当,可能导致严重的并发症,甚至危及病人生命[2].现将LCBDE术后6例患者并发胆瘘的护理体会报告如下.     

Comparison of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in the treatment of impacted ureteral stones: An analysis of risk factors

The aim was to compare pneumatic and holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser in the treatment of impacted ureteral stones with different locations and to identify the risk factors for complications. Between March 2005 and November 2012, a total of 230 patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy for impacted stones. Of the patients, 117 had pneumatic and 113 had laser lithotripsy for the fragmentation of the stones. Treatment outcomes based on evidence of being stone free were evaluated. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative follow-up findings were analyzed and compared. There was a difference between the two groups according to overall stone clearance rate (93.8% vs. 80.3%, p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference for distal location between the laser and pneumatic groups (96.8% vs. 91.7%, p = 0.288). For 10 patients with intrarenally migrated stones who were managed with flexible ureterorenoscopy in the same session, laser lithotripsy was more successful than pneumatic for proximal ureteral stone (94.4% vs. 67.9%, p = 0.007). The overall complication rate was 26.1%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (29% vs. 23%, p = 0.296). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the proximal location was a statistically significant parameter for the occurrence of complications in both groups (p = 0.001 for PL, p = 0.004 for laser). The pneumatic and holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy are effective in the treatment of distal impacted stones. Both treatments with semirigid ureteroscopy are acceptable for proximal impacted ureteral stones, but holmium laser lithotripsy has an advantage of use with flexible ureteroscope for intrarenally migrated stone.     

Cirugía retrógrada intrarrenal para el tratamiento de cálculos renales bajo anestesia espinal,un método mínimamente invasivo. Análisis retrospectivo de 1.467 casos

Introduction and objectivesThe aim of the present study was to compare RIRS procedures applied under general anaesthesia (GA) and spinal anaesthesia (SA) regarding success and complication rates.Materials and methodsA retrospective evaluation was conducted with the data obtained from patients treated with RIRS under SA and GA at 2 centres from October 2014 until January 2018. The SA and GA groups were evaluated according to the parameters of stone-free and complication rates, postoperative pain control and length of in-hospital stay. The stone-free rates from the RIRS procedures applied with SA were evaluated by the surgeons who participated in the study.ResultsA total of 1361 patients were included in the study. A stone-free rate of 84.4% was obtained in the global results: 85.3% in the SA group and 83.5% in the GA group (P=.364). No statistically significant difference was determined regarding surgeons who practiced RIRS under SA with respect to success/complication rates and operating time (P=.676). Operating time was determined as 44.2 ± 14.2 mins in the SA group and 49.7 ± 19.1 mins in the GA group (P=.014).ConclusionsThe RIRS method can be applied safely, either under spinal anaesthesia, or under general anaesthesia. The success of RIRS under spinal anaesthesia has been shown as an independent factor regarding surgeon. It can be considered a good alternative to general anaesthesia.