APP下载

输尿管软镜激光碎石与体外冲击波碎石治疗肾下盏结石的疗效比较

2016-11-11张振兴姜书传黄后宝董昌斌

浙江临床医学 2016年9期
关键词:软镜冲击波输尿管

张振兴 卓 栋⋆ 姜书传 韩 杰 黄后宝 董昌斌

输尿管软镜激光碎石与体外冲击波碎石治疗肾下盏结石的疗效比较

张振兴卓栋⋆姜书传韩杰黄后宝董昌斌

目的 比较输尿管软镜激光碎石及体外冲击波碎石治疗肾下盏结石的疗效。方法 肾下盏结石患者146例均接受体外冲击波碎石(SWL)或输尿管软镜钬激光碎石(FURSL)治疗,并随访3个月。结石清石率标准为结石残片≤3mm,复查设备为B超影像或X线检查。数据用EXCEL记录并用SPSS 19.0进行分析。结果 所有肾下盏结石患者均接受治疗(78例SWL及68例FURSL)。SWL组结石平均10.2 mm明显低于FURSL组16.4 mm。FURSL组平均手术时间65min,平均术后住院天数2.8d。FURSL组结石清石率92.6%明显高于SWL组24.4%(P<0.001),FURSL组术后出现4例并发症(3例Clavien Ⅱ及1例Clavien Ⅰ),2例尿源性脓毒血症,1例尿路感染,1例术后置管不适。SWL组3例患者(Clavien Ⅰ)因肾绞痛患者再次住院,两组均未出现其他并发症。结论 FURSL治疗肾下盏结石较SWL更具优势,包括高清石率及能处理更大的结石,或能成为未来治疗肾下盏结石的金标准。

肾结石 激光 输尿管软镜 下盏 碎石术

肾下盏结石治疗难点主要在于肾下盏的解剖因素,如盏颈较细、较长以及与肾盂的夹角问题[1]。由于以上的因素合并结石大小因素,在选择治疗方式时尚有争议[1-5]。目前,对于处理<2cm的结石,被广为接受的是体外冲击波碎石(SWL)及输尿管软镜激光碎石术(FURSL)[2],选择PCNL处理更大结石[6-10]。本文比较两种不同治疗方式的疗效。报道如下。

1 临床资料

1.1一般资料 2015年4月至10月本院肾下盏结石患者146例,均经FURSL或SWL治疗。SWL组78例,男50例,女28例;年龄24~78岁,平均年龄54岁。FURSL组68例,男42例,女26例;年龄16~81岁,平均年龄51岁。29例FURSL患者除肾下盏结石外还合并有同侧其他位置结石(11例肾结石及18例输尿管结石),术前60例留置双J管,所有FURSL患者术中均使用输送鞘。随访时间2周左右。诊断均经KUB和CT检查,治疗后随访复查选择KUB或超声检查。所有的患者术前均检查血常规、肌酐和尿培养,FURSL或SWL由患者自己选择,很多患者第一次偏好于选择SWL,FURSL作为SWL治疗失败或是存在SWL禁忌时的选择。

1.2方法 (1)SWL治疗:使用惠康(HK. ESWLVI)碎石机,均为门诊治疗。操作前,给予患者100mg双氯芬酸钠肛塞。平均每次碎石冲击波次数为3100次,能量水平为17KV,如患者第1次碎石无效,推荐1周后再次碎石,如再失败,则建议患者选择其他治疗方式。(2)FURSL治疗:大部分患者择全身麻醉下手术,使用奥林巴斯输尿管纤维软镜,镍钛合金套石篮和钬激光碎石。术中常规使用输尿管软镜输送鞘。全麻选择自发呼吸技术及喉罩,术中镇痛使用芬太尼及吗啡,常规预防性使用抗生素,一次性使用昂丹司琼,术中使用晶体液500~1000ml。术后3个月复查,随访影像学检查,对于X线检查表现阳性,常规选择KUB,其他选择超声检查。清石率为随访的残留结石≤3mm为手术成功[8]。1.3 统计学方法 采用SPSS 19.0软件。计数资料用χ2检验,P<0.05 为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果

SWL组结石平均直径10.2mm明显小于FURSL组16.4mm,但SWL组术后碎石率为61.5%,清石率仅24.4%,FURSL组肾下盏结石的清石率92.6%,明显高于SWL组24.4%(P<0.001)。FURSL组平均手术时间65min,术后平均住院时间2.8d,SWL组均为门诊治疗,平均时间45min。FURSL组术后并发症发生率 5.8%;2例患者为尿源性脓毒血症,1例为术后尿路感染,1例因术后留置双J管疼痛再入院(3例ClavienⅡ和1例ClavienⅠ)。3例出现感染并发症的患者术前均尿培养检查,且均预防性使用抗生素。SWL组并发症发生率为3.8%(Clavien Ⅰ),均因治疗后出现肾绞痛再次入院,无其他并发症。见表1。

表1 SWL及FURSL患者资料

3 讨论

治疗肾下盏结石的方法选择目前仍有争议,SWL碎石率61.5%,清石率24.4%,且同时SWL存在不需要全身麻醉和更微创[10-11]的优势,但存在明显的缺点,尤其是处理肾下盏结石[4],如清石率低和再治疗[2]。输尿管软镜因其结石清除率高并发症低[5],成为较好的选择。本资料显示,两者清石率差异有统计学意义(P<0.001),并发症发生率差异无统计学意义。Sener等研究认为FURSL及SWL治疗肾下盏<1cm结石,清石率分别为100%及91.5%,尽管两种治疗方式并发症发生率相近,但FURSL再治疗几率要低。但El-Nahas等[2]研究认为,FURSL及SWL处理肾下盏1~2cm结石,FURSL清石率明显高于SWL(86.5% vs. 67.7%),并发症的发生率稍高于SWL,但差异无统计学意义(P=0.146),再治疗率明显高于SWL(60% vs 8%)。SWL的清石率受不同因素的影响,如肥胖(增加皮肤到结石的距离)、结石密度和成分[6],但以上所有的因素对FURSL的手术操作并不影响。尽管肾下盏的解剖位置一定程度上影响软镜的操作,但对于SWL后结石的排出影响更大。Sampaio等报道结石位于肾下盏的位置及合并其他解剖因素,影响结石碎片在重力作用下的排出[1]。Aboumarzouk等[12]研究显示FURSL同时具有碎除更大结石(>2cm)的优点。本资料中,FURSL组存在3例Clavien Ⅱ级并发症(2例尿源性脓毒血症及1例尿路感染),SWL组出现3例Clavien Ⅰ级并发症(均为肾绞痛),作者认为可能是因为FURSL具一定的创伤性造成的。这与以往研究[2,9]结果类似。

总之,FURSL治疗肾下盏结石较SWL具一定优势,如较高清石率,较低的再治疗率,同时可治疗较大结石,因此,作者认为FURSL在肾下盏结石治疗方式颇具价值。

[1] Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH. Limitations of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones: anatomic insight. J Endourol,1994,8: 241-247.

[2] El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ. Flexible ureterenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm. BJU Int,2012,110: 898-902.

[3] Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B,et al. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol,1994,151: 663-667

[4] Juan YS, Chuang SM, Wu WJ, et al. Impact of lower pole anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci, 2005,21: 358-364.

[5] Andonian S, Okeke Z, Smith AD. Digital ureteroscopy: the next step. J Endourol,2008,22: 603-606.

[6] El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Mansour O, et al.A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the value of high- resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol,2007,51: 1688-1693.

[7] Koo V, Young M, Thompson T, Duggan B. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole calculi. BJU Int,2011,108: 1913-1916.

[8] Somani BK, Desai M, Traxer O, Lahme S. Stone-free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR. Urolithiasis, 2014,42: 95-96.

[9] Sener NC, Imamoglu MA, Bas O, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. Urolithiasis,2014,42: 127-131.

[10] Gerber GS. Management of lower-pole caliceal stones. J Endourol, 2003,17: 501-503.

[11] Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R,et al. Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol, 2005,173: 2005-2009.

[12] Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG, Traxer O, Somani BK. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Endourol, 2012,26: 1257-1263.

Objective To compare the effi cacy of fl exible ureteroscope and laser lithotripsy(FURSL)and shock wave lithotripsy(SWL)treatment for renal lower calyx stones. Methods Data of 146 cases with renal lower calyx calculi who were undergone shock wave lithotripsy(SWL)or fl exible ureteroscope holmium laser lithotripsy(FURSL)treatment from April to October in 2015 at the First Affi liated Hospital of Wannan Medical College were collected,follow-up period was three months and checked by ultrasound or X-ray examination. The stone free rate(SFR)was defi ned as≤3mm fragments on follow-up imaging or stone free endoscopically. Data was recorded in an excel spreadsheet with SPSS version 19.0 used for statistical analysis. Results All 146 cases of lower calyx calculi patients were treated(78 SWL and 68 FURSL). Mean stone size of SWL group was10.2 mm(8-16 mm),which was signifi cantly lower than FURSL group whose was 16.4 mm(9-33 mm).mean operation time OF FURSL was 65 minutes(30-160min)average postoperative hospital stay was 2.8 days(1-7 days). FURSL stone free rate(n=63;92.6%)was signifi cantly higher than(P<0.001)SWL group(n=19;24.4%);There were four cases with postoperative complications(3 Clavien II and 1 Clavien I)in the FURSL group,2 cases urosepsis,1 case urinary tract infection,1 patient stent discomfort. SWL group 3 patients(Clavien I)due to renal colic patients admitted to hospital. Conclusions Compare to SWL,FURSL may become the gold standard for lower calyx stones in the future with its advantages,including high stone free rate and can handle larger stones.

Renal stones Laser Flexible ureteroroscopys lower calyx lithotripsy

241001 皖南医学院第一附属医院 泌尿外科

猜你喜欢

软镜冲击波输尿管
输尿管硬镜治疗输尿管上段结石临床分析
World J Urol:输尿管软镜治疗肾下盏结石的疗效评估
——可重复性或一次性输尿管软镜孰优孰劣?
输尿管软镜治疗肾结石对肾功能损伤标志物水平的影响
输尿管软镜碎石术在孤立肾与非孤立肾结石中的临床分析
防护装置粘接强度对爆炸切割冲击波的影响
输尿管软镜碎石技术:过去、现在与未来
武汉冲击波
能源物联网冲击波
经尿道输尿管镜下治疗输尿管结石合并远端输尿管狭窄26例临床观察
电切镜联合输尿管镜在腺性膀胱炎中寻找困难输尿管开口的应用