Percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteral lithotripsy, which one is better for patients with upper ureteral calculi of 1.5-2.0 cm in diameter

被引:2
作者
Chen, Wenpu [1 ,2 ]
Hu, Hengda [1 ,2 ]
Yu, Guofeng [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Univ Med & Hlth Sci, Dept Urol, Jinshan Dist Cent Hosp, 147 Jiankang Rd, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[2] Shanghai Sixth Peoples Hosp, Jinshan Branch, 147 Jiankang Rd, Shanghai, Peoples R China
关键词
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Flexible ureteral lithotripsy; Upper ureteral stone; INTRARENAL SURGERY RIRS; LAPAROSCOPIC URETEROLITHOTOMY; STONE; PCNL; PREVALENCE;
D O I
10.1186/s12894-024-01480-1
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose First research to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteral lithotripsy (FURSL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of the upper ureteral stone is between 1.5 cm and 2.0 cm in diameter since there is no consensus with such ureteral stone yet. Methods From December 2018 to October 2022, 104 patients with calculi in the upper ureter received percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)or flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURSL) in our institution. The clinical data of the patients in the two groups were retrospectively searched. Stone removal rate, operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain score, postoperative inflammatory factor, postoperative complication rates and ureteral obstruction three months after the operation were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 104 patients were included in the study. The stone clearance rate and the secondary surgery rate were 88.89% and 7.41% in the FURSL group, the figures were 97.96% and 2.0% in the PCNL group (p = 0.067, 0.497). Regarding ureteral obstruction three months after the operation, there were 2 patients in FURSL group and 0 patients in PCNL group(p = 0.497).Compared to patients in FURSL group, patients in the PCNL group had shorter operation time(PCNL 71.81 +/- 18.94 min vs. FURSL 86.80 +/- 22.49 min, p = 0.0004), fewer complications(PCNL 20.37% vs. FURSL 6.12%), and lower postoperative inflammatory factor(p = 0.0004), yet they got more hemoglobin drop (PCNL 13.14 +/- 9.81 g/L vs. FURSL 4.77 +/- 3.55 g/L, p < 0.0001), higher postoperative pain scores(p = 0.0017) in the first three postoperative days and longer hospital stay (PCNL 4.96 +/- 1.21 days vs. FURSL 3.60 +/- 0.83 days). Conclusion Both FURSL and PCNL were effective methods for treating upper ureteral stones of 1.5-2.0 cm in diameter given the extremely high stone clearance rate and a very low secondary surgery rate, as long as rare ureteral obstruction in medium-long term observation. Additionally, FURSL can effectively reduce surgical bleeding, postoperative pain, and hospital stay, while PCNL can decrease operation time, the risk of infection, and complications. Therefore, doctors could select suitable surgical treatment for those patients depending on their different clinical situations based on these findings.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stones: Surgical technique, outcomes and literature review [J].
Abdel Raheem, Ali ;
Alowidah, Ibrahim ;
Hagras, Ayman ;
Gameel, Tarek ;
Ghaith, Ahmed ;
Elghiaty, Ahmed ;
Althakafi, Sultan ;
Al-Mousa, Mohammed ;
Alturki, Mohammed .
ASIAN JOURNAL OF ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY, 2021, 14 (02) :241-249
[2]   Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi [J].
Aboumarzouk, Omar M. ;
Kata, Slawomir G. ;
Keeley, Francis X. ;
Nabi, Ghulam .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2011, (12)
[3]  
Cheng YQ, 2022, AM J TRANSL RES, V14, P1849
[4]   Systematic review and cumulative analysis of the managements for proximal impacted ureteral stones [J].
Deng, Tuo ;
Chen, Yiwen ;
Liu, Bing ;
Laguna, M. Pilar ;
de la Rosette, Jean J. M. C. H. ;
Duan, Xiaolu ;
Wu, Wenqi ;
Zeng, Guohua .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 37 (08) :1687-1701
[5]   Outcome of Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy (TPLU) for proximal ureteral stone &gt; 15 mm: Our experience with 60 cases [J].
Eslahi, Ali ;
Ahmed, Faisal ;
Rahimi, Mohammad ;
Jafari, Seyed Hamed ;
Hosseini, Seyyed Hossein ;
Al-wageeh, Saleh ;
Shirazi, Pegah Mohammad Zadeh ;
Al-naggar, Khalil ;
Al-shami, Ebrahim ;
Taghrir, Mohammad Hossein .
ARCHIVIO ITALIANO DI UROLOGIA E ANDROLOGIA, 2021, 93 (03) :330-335
[6]   Reply from Authors re: Brian R. Matlaga. How Do We Manage Infected, Obstructed Hydronephrosis? Eur Urol 2013;64:93-4 The Infected Upper Urinary Tract Stone and Obstruction: Stent First Where Possible? [J].
Ghani, Khurshid R. ;
Sammon, Jesse D. ;
Quoc-Dien Trinh .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2013, 64 (01) :95-96
[7]   Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic treatment of 2 cm. or greater upper urinary tract and minor staghorn calculi [J].
Grasso, M ;
Conlin, M ;
Bagley, D .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1998, 160 (02) :346-351
[8]   Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000 [J].
Hesse, A ;
Brändle, E ;
Wilbert, D ;
Köhrmann, KU ;
Alken, P .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2003, 44 (06) :709-713
[9]   Laser Doppler flowmetric determination of ureteral blood flow after ureteral access sheath placement [J].
Lallas, CD ;
Auge, BK ;
Raj, GV ;
Santa-Cruz, R ;
Madden, JF ;
Preminger, GM .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2002, 16 (08) :583-590
[10]   Systemic inflammatory response syndrome in patients with acute obstructive upper tract urinary stone: a risk factor for urgent renal drainage and revisit to the emergency department [J].
Larkin, Spencer ;
Johnson, Jeremy ;
Venkatesh, Trisha ;
Vetter, Joel ;
Venkatesh, Ramakrishna .
BMC UROLOGY, 2020, 20 (01)