部分无管化与标准经皮肾镜取石术治疗上尿路结石的有效性及安全性

目的 比较部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术和标准经皮肾镜取石术治疗上尿路结石的有效性、安全性。方法 回顾性分析2018年6月-2021年12月乐山市人民医院收治的上尿路结石并行经皮肾镜取石术治疗的患者802例，根据是否留置肾造瘘管为部分无管化组和标准经皮肾镜取石术组。采用单纯随机法每组选取60例患者。比较两组患者临床资料、手术并发症发生情况及结石清除率等。结果 120例患者均顺利完成手术，部分无管化组患者术后住院时间、疼痛评分、术后恢复明显优于标准组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);而两组在手术时间、失血量、手术并发症、结石清除率等方面比较，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 在上尿路结石的治疗中，部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术疗效可靠，在术后恢复和患者体验方面具有明显优势，值得临床推广应用。     

无管化微造瘘经皮肾镜取石术治疗肾和输尿管上段结石

目的探讨无管化微造瘘经皮肾镜取石术治疗肾和输尿管上段结石的疗效及安全性,评估无管化微创手术的优势。方法采用微造瘘经皮肾镜取石术治疗肾和输尿管上段结石150例,人选病例随机分为2组,无管化组75例,标准组75例,两组性别、年龄无统计学差异。统计手术时间、住院时间、医疗费用、结石清除率、术后镇痛药需求等指标。结杲无管化组和标准组平均手术时间、结石清除率、感染、输血等并发症的发生率无显著性差异（P〉0．05）;住院时间、医疗费用、术后疼痛程度、镇痛药的需求及恢复正常生活时间无管化组显著低于标准组（P〈0．05）。结论无管化微造瘘经皮肾镜取石术是治疗肾和输尿管上段结石的一种有效、经济、安全的方法。     

局麻下部分无管化微创经皮肾镜的临床疗效

目的比较局麻下部分无管化微创经皮肾镜碎石取石术（PCNL）与普通MPCNL的临床结果，探讨局麻无管化MPCNL的安全性和临床疗效。 方法回顾性分析我院2019年1月至2019年11月行局麻PCNL患者，局麻无管化MPCNL组的患者68例，局麻普通MPCNL组患者67例。比较两组患者的一般资料。 结果两组患者临床资料具有可比性，无管化组术后平均住院时间为3.15 d，有管化组为6.48 d（P<0.01）；术后6 h VAS评分无管化组为4 h，有管化组为6.24（P<0.01）；术后第l天VAS评分无管化组为2.50，有管化组为3.84（P<0.01）；两组患者在手术时间、穿刺位置、术后血红蛋白下降率、出院当天VAS评分、术后发热、结石清除率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。 结论局麻下行PCNL术简单安全有效，值得临床推广运用。无管化MPCNL治疗肾结石可减轻患者术后疼痛不适，缩短住院时间。     

可视化经皮肾镜和输尿管软镜行钬激光碎石术治疗15～20 mm肾下盏结石对比研究

目的比较可视化经皮肾镜取石术与输尿管软镜碎石术治疗最大直径15~20 mm肾下盏结石的疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析2016年9月~2017年8月间我院治疗的58肾下盏结石患者的临床资料,结石最大直径在15~20 mm,其中行可视化经皮肾镜钬激光碎石术治疗31例,行输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术治疗27例。比较两组患者手术相关指标、清石率和并发症情况,评估两种手术方式的效果和安全性。结果两组血清降钙素原、血红蛋白下降、输血、术后感染情况和术后疼痛VAS评分比较,均无统计学差异(P0.05);可视化经皮肾镜组手术时间短于输尿管软镜组,而术后住院日则长于输尿管软镜术组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后4周复查CT评估排石情况,两组清石率相当,组间比较无统计学差异(87.1%vs.81.5%,P0.05)。结论可视化经皮肾镜碎石术处理肾下盏15~20 mm结石,清石率高,而手术并发症发生率低,和输尿管软镜碎石术一样,可以作为良好的可选择方案。     

全麻与腰麻无管化经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗肾结石的比较

目的探讨全麻与腰麻无管化经皮肾镜碎石取石术(PCNL)治疗肾结石的临床效果。方法前瞻性分析2017年8月至2017年12月我院65例行无管化经皮肾镜钬激光碎石取石术的患者的临床资料,术前采用随机数字表将患者分为全麻组与腰麻组,其中术中发生严重出血需留置肾造瘘管共12例被删除。最终53例行无管化PCNL的患者被纳入研究,其中全麻组28例,腰麻组25例,统计分析两组患者结石的基本特征、术中及术后的参数。结果两组患者在年龄、性别、体质量指数、结石大小、结石位置、手术时间、住院天数、穿刺针数、穿刺位置、血红蛋白下降、出院当天视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS)及残石率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但腰麻组术后的第一天的VAS评分[(4.4±1.8)vs(6.4±2.0),P<0.05]及曲马多镇痛需求量[(56±36) mg vs (112±44) mg,P<0.05]显著小于全麻组。结论腰麻行无管化PCNL是全麻下无管化PCNL的良好替代方案,与全麻相比,腰麻术后疼痛更轻,减少了无管化PCNL患者术后镇痛需求。     

经皮微创肾镜碎石术对上尿路结石患者并发症及疼痛程度的影响

目的 探讨经皮微创肾镜碎石术对上尿路结石患者并发症及疼痛程度的影响.方法 回顾性分析2012年9月至2015年12月期间本院确诊治疗的上尿路结石患者100例,依据治疗方法分为对照组和微创组,每组50例,对照组患者给予传统输尿管切开取石术治疗,微创组患者给予经皮微创肾镜碎石术治疗,采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估患者疼痛程度,统计分析所有患者结石清除情况、术中出血量、手术、血尿转清、住院时间和术前、术后1、3、5d的疼痛及并发症发生情况.结果 对照组和微创组患者一次结石清除率基本相同,比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);微创组患者术中出血量、手术、血尿转清、住院时间明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).微创组患者术后1、3、5d的VAS得分明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).微创组患者并发症发生率明显低于对照组,有显著性差异(P＜0.05).结论 经皮微创肾镜碎石术治疗上尿路结石疗效确切,可有效减少患者术中创伤和术后并发症的发生,缓解患者疼痛症状,有利于患者身体的恢复,值得临床进一步推广.     

输尿管软镜联合体外冲击波取石术与部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术治疗复杂性鹿角形肾结石的疗效对比

目的:探讨及分析输尿管软镜联合体外冲击波碎石取石术与部分无管化经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗复杂性鹿角形肾结石的临床效果。方法:选取2017 年12 月—2019 年7 月在陕西省榆林市第二医院诊治的复杂性鹿角形肾结石患者100 例,随机均分为两组,对照组采用部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术治疗,术后留置双J 管,不留肾造瘘管,对穿刺口皮肤直接缝合。治疗组采用输尿管软镜联合体外冲击碎石术治疗。术后分别对比分析两组患者的手术情况(术中出血、漏尿时间、住院时间、手术时间),术后VAS 评分以及治疗总有效率等指标。结果:治疗组的术中出血、漏尿时间、住院时间均小于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05),两组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P >0.05),治疗组于手术后6 h、手术后1 d 的VAS 评分均明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05);出院当天,两组的VAS 评分差异无统计学意义(P ＞ 0.05)。治疗组患者结石治疗总有效率为96%(48/50),明显高于对照组的76%(38/50),差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。结论:对于复杂性鹿角形肾结石患者,因根据患者全身情况,结石的位置、大小、数量,以及辅助检查的情况进行综合评估,选择合适的手术方式,当患者能够同时采用两种手术并且都能达到预期治疗效果时,建议选择输尿管软镜联合体外冲击波取石术。     

无管化经皮肾镜治疗肾和输尿管上段结石

目的探讨无管化经皮肾镜碎石取石术（PCNL）治疗肾和输尿管上段结石的安全性、可行性和禁忌证。 方法回顾性研究中山大学附属第三医院·岭南医院泌尿外科2016年11月至2018年5月80例PCNL患者临床资料,已排除脓肾结石患者,根据是否留置肾造瘘管分组：患者术后输尿管内留置双J管,同时留置肾造瘘管40例（传统PCNL组）,术后只留置双J管,无留置肾造瘘管40例（无管化PCNL组)。 结果两组患者年龄、肾和输尿管结石位置和结石负荷、肾积水直径、总手术时间和结石清除率等差异比较均无统计学意义。患者术后第一天疼痛评分（VAS）试验组比对照组低（3.4±0.9 vs 5.6±1.4）,平均住院时间与对照组比较缩短（7.9±1.4 vs 8.8±1.6）d,差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。 结论无管化PCNL治疗非脓性肾输尿管上段结石安全可行,且可减轻患者术后疼痛,缩短住院时间。     

无管化经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗上尿路结石的临床研究

目的探讨无管化经皮肾镜碎石取石术(PCNL)治疗上尿路结石的可行性、安全性和临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2017年7月至2018年4月本院采用无管化经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗的36例上尿路结石患者的临床资料。观察患者结石清除率、疼痛视觉评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、肾周血肿及积液发生率、尿外渗发生率、发热、出血及输血情况、术后住院时间等数据和指标。结果 36例手术均一期取净结石,手术时间15~60分钟,平均(30. 6±8. 2)分钟;结石清除率100%; VAS评分为(3. 08±0. 36)分;术后血红蛋白平均下降(6. 02±3. 06) g/L,无输血病例,无选择性肾动脉栓塞病例;无明显肾周血肿及尿外渗发生;术后有2例患者出现明显发热(体温 38. 5℃),经抗生素治疗后好转;术后平均住院时间(2. 8±0. 6)天。术后4周复查,未发生其他明显并发症。结论在严格掌握手术指征、熟练手术操作的基础上,无管化经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗上尿路结石是安全有效的。     

部分无管化经皮肾镜治疗上尿路结石135例效果分析

目的探讨部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术(术后不留置肾造瘘管仅留置双J管)治疗上尿路结石的临床可行性、安全性及应用价值。方法回顾性分析我院2016年1月~2016年12月符合条件的因上尿路结石接受部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术患者资料,观察记录手术时间、术中出血、输血情况、结石清除率、术中术后并发症、术后留置导尿管及住院时间。结果 135例患者均成功实施一期部分无管化经皮肾镜取石术,手术时间20~65 min,平均48±11 min,其中F18号通道75例,F20号通道60例,单通道127例,双通道8例,所有病例未发生严重并发症,结石清除率98.5%(132/135),平均术后留置尿管3.5±0.5 d,平均术后住院时间4.5±0.5 d。结论选择性实施部分无管化经皮肾镜治疗上尿路结石安全、患者术后恢复快,效果满意。     

Case selection and implementation of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy

BackgroundThe tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) was proposed to eliminate the side effects of the nephrostomy tube in recent years, such as pain, channel infection, postoperative bleeding, and longer hospital stay. But there is neither clinical guidelines nor consensus about tubeless PCNL in clinical practice. The study is aimed to how to implement the tubeless PCNL step by step, including case selection preoperatively, improving the technique of the surgeon, making the correct decisions at the end of the procedure, which had not been previously examined.MethodsFrom January 2017 to March 2018, 364 consecutive patients requiring PCNL were comprehensively analyzed preoperatively and patients were selected for scheduled tubeless PCNL based on four aspects. The selected patients were divided into two groups according to whether the nephrostomy tube was finally placed. The mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, stone clearance rate, visual pain score, postoperative hospitalization days and perioperative complications were all evaluated.ResultsBased on the preoperative evaluation, 42 patients were selected for tubeless PCNL, among which there were finally 37 cases of completed tubeless PCNL. Compared with patients undergoing conventional PCNL, there were not statistical differences in the mean operative time (P=0.207) or intraoperative blood loss (P=0.450) in the tubeless group. Stone clearance rate was 100% in both groups. The visual pain scores in the tubeless PCNL group were lower on operation day (P=0.029), first postoperative day (P<0.001) and the day of discharge (P=0.025). The postoperative hospitalization for the tubeless PCNL group was shorter than that of the control group (P<0.001). No significant difference in grade 1 complications was seen (P=0.424), and no grade 2 or higher complications were observed in either group.ConclusionsPostoperative pain was significantly relieved and postoperative hospitalization was significantly shortened in the tubeless PCNL group. Tubeless PCNL is safe if patients are carefully selected using four criteria before operation, attention is paid to four key points and five confirmations are made during operation.     

“Ambulatory PCNL” (Tubeless PCNL under Regional Anesthesia) – A Preliminary Report of 10 Cases

Aim: We report the technique, safety, outcome and efficacy of “tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) performed under regional anesthesia” in selected cases. Methods: Patients satisfying the entry criteria for the regional block (spinal low-dose anesthesia with low-dose Bupivacaine plus Fentanyl) and tubeless procedure were subjected to a tubeless spinal PCNL The patients were followed up the next day for an ultrasonography and an x-ray of the KUB region. Results: All the ten patients were discharged uneventfully the next day (mean hospital stay-40 h). No blood transfusion and postoperative analgesics (mean post op visual analogue pain score was 2.4) were required. The mean time to return of S₁ sensation, motor block and walking were 183,118 and 196.6 min respectively. There was complete stone clearance in all the cases with a mean collection of 14.5 cc was seen on the post op ultrasound. Conclusions: The present cases were reported to highlight that in a select group of patients tubeless PCNL under regional block is technically feasible and viable option. Regional block has the advantage of avoidance of general anesthesia and anaphylaxis due to use of multiple drugs. Tubeless PCNL has the advantage of avoidance of nephrostomy tube related postoperative pain discomfort and urosepsis. This synergistically (spinal + tubeless PCNL) speeds up the recovery, shortens the length of hospitalization and the analgesic requirement.     

无管化经皮肾镜治疗肾结石的研究进展

尿石症是泌尿外科常见疾病之一。经皮肾镜碎石取石术已经成为治疗肾结石的主要手术方式。标准的经皮肾镜碎石取石需要肾造瘘管及输尿管内支架管来进行引流及压迫止血。然而,这一手术也会带来出血、疼痛、住院时间延长、住院费用升高等缺点。无管化经皮肾能减少上述相关风险。笔者将对无管化经皮肾镜碎石取石的研究进展进行综述。     

Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy

PURPOSE: We evaluated the requirement for routine placement of a ureteral stent and a nephrostomy tube following percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 43 patients underwent totally tubeless PCNL and was compared with a control group of 43 age-, sex-, weight-, and procedure-matched patients who had previously undergone PCNL with placement of a ureteral stent and a nephrostomy tube. Exclusion criteria for the tubeless approach were more than two percutaneous accesses, significant perforation of the collecting system, a large residual stone burden, significant postoperative bleeding, ureteral obstruction, and renal anomaly. The incidence of complications, length of hospitalization, analgesia requirements, and interval to return to normal activities were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: All 43 percutaneous procedures were performed without significant complications. None of the patients demonstrated urinoma in postoperative renal ultrasound scans. The average length of hospital stay was 1.6 days, with two-thirds of the patients staying <1 day for the study group, and 5.2 days for the controls (P < 0.001). The average analgesia requirement was 9.8 mg and 28.4 mg of morphine, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients returned to normal activities with 12.7 days v 24.6 days for the controls (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Totally tubeless PCNL is a safe and effective procedure. The hospitalization and analgesia requirements are less and the return to normal activities faster with this technique.     

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it really less morbid?

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate and study the role, relative safety, and effectiveness of "tubeless" percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and whether it is really less morbid vis-à-vis PCNL with a nephrostomy tube; to compare the postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, hospital stay, return to work time, and other parameters in patients undergoing tubeless PCNL and standard PCNL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty selected patients underwent PCNL. A single urologist (IS) was the surgeon, and a resident administered random chit numbers, and recorded pain scores and results of all the chosen parameters. Patients who fulfilled the entry criteria for a tubeless PCNL protocol were randomized to either the omission of a nephrostomy tube (tubeless PCNL with Double-J stent) or to the placement of a 22F nephrostomy tube. The recorded data were analyzed with respect to several parameters. RESULTS: The mean age, stone burden, and preoperative hemoglobin, blood urea, and serum creatinine values were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the operative time (P < 0.001), analgesia requirement (P < 0.001), and hospital stay and time to return to normal activity (P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the tubeless PCNL group. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly less pain, lower analgesia requirement, and shorter hospital stay with early return to normal activities were observed in the tubeless PCNL group v the primary nephrostomy tube PCNL group. Tubeless PCNL in selected patients is a secure, effective, and less morbid procedure that does not compromise patient safety and concerns. We recommend that tubeless PCNL be the preferred procedure in selected patients for management of nephrolithiasis.     

A randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy

PURPOSE: We present a randomized study of tubeless or nephrostomy-free percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), a modification of the standard technique, compared with standard PCNL to evaluate the role of tubeless PCNL in minimizing postoperative discomfort and reducing duration of hospital stay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred and two patients undergoing PCNL were randomized to two groups: Group A (standard PCNL) with nephrostomy tube placement postoperatively, and group B (tubeless PCNL) with antegrade placement of a Double-J stent without nephrostomy. Inclusion criteria were: normal renal functions, single tract procedure with complete clearance, and minimal bleeding at completion. The two groups were comparable in age and sex and in metabolic and anatomic features. Factors evaluated included postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, blood loss, postoperative morbidity, hospital stay, and time to recovery. RESULTS: All patients had an uneventful postoperative recovery. The average visual analogue scale pain score on postoperative day 1 for group A patients was 59 +/- 5.1 compared with 31 +/- 4.8 in group B (P < 0.01). The mean analgesia requirement for group A (meperidine 126.5 +/- 33.3 mg) was significantly more compared with group B (meperidine 81.7 +/- 24.5 mg) (P < 0.01). The difference in average blood loss and urinary infection for the two groups was not statistically significant. The incidence of urinary leakage from the nephrostomy site was significantly less for the tubeless group (0/101), compared with the standard PNL group (7/101). The average hospital stay in the tubeless group (21.8 +/- 3.9 hours) was significantly shorter than that of the standard PCNL group (54.2 +/- 5 hours) (P < 0.01). Tubeless group patients took 5 to 7 days for complete convalescence whereas standard PCNL patients recovered in 8 to 10 days. No long-term sequelae were noticed in the median follow-up period of 18 months in any patient. CONCLUSION: Nephrostomy-free or tubeless PCNL reduces postoperative urinary leakage and local pain related to the drainage tube. It also minimizes hospital stay; the majority of patients were discharged from the hospital in fewer than 24 hours.     

Randomized trial comparing modified tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tailed stent with percutaneous nephrostomy with small-bore tube

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent trials using smaller percutaneous catheters as well as "tubeless" percutaneous technique have attempted to reduce postoperative analgesia requirements and the morbidity of a traditional large-bore nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We performed a randomized trial comparing tubeless procedures and use of small catheters to elucidate any differences in perioperative parameters, postoperative discomfort, complications, convalescence, and CT scan findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four consecutive patients underwent randomization into tubeless (using a tailed 6F double-J stent) and small tube (using an 8.2 pigtail nephrostomy tube) (N = 12 each). A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast was obtained the morning of the first postoperative day. Morphine equivalents and a visual analog pain score, as well as questionnaires for convalescence at the postoperative check, postoperative day 1, time of tube removal (3-5 days), and 1-week follow-up were recorded. RESULTS: The mean pain scores and morphine requirements for the tubeless and small-tube groups at postoperative day 0, postoperative day 1, time of stent removal, and 10 days were not significantly different. Convalescence significantly favored stented patients. The CT findings were equivalent. Three patients had inadvertent dislodgment of their stents. CONCLUSIONS: Tubeless and small-bore procedures cause similar postoperative discomfort, with indwelling stents appearing to quicken return to normal activities. Tailed stents may not be appropriate for all patients.     

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Placement of the nephrostomy tube is the last step after completion of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We were able to demonstrate in selected patients who had undergone PCNL that the use of an externalized ureteral catheter can reduce postoperative discomfort without complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients underwent tubeless PCNL with an externalized 6F ureteral catheter for 48 hours. Inclusion criteria were use of a single access site where the renal unit was not obstructive, no significant perforation and bleeding, and no need for a second look. The stone burden was not taken into account. RESULTS: The procedure was performed successfully without major complications. The average length of hospitalization was 3.63 days: 25 patients stayed for 4 days, with the final day reserved for observation after removal of the catheter. The remaining 12 patients stayed only 3 days and could be discharged on the day the catheter was removed. The average intramuscular analgesic requirement was 38.57 mg of meperidine, and none of the patients needed a blood transfusion or required the emergency placement of a nephrostomy tube. CONCLUSION: In properly selected patients, tubeless PCNL with only an externalized ureteral catheter was found to be safe and just as economical as tubeless PCNL with the same outcome.