Comparison of the treatment of minimally invasive percutaneous nephro?鄄lithotomy and flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy for solitary kidney subrenal calyx calculus 2-3 cm
ZHANG Yu1,2 JIANG Youtao3 LI Jiuzhi3 CHEN Lezhong1 WU Yue2
1.Department of Urology, Baoan Central Hospital of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, Shenzhen 518102, China；
2.Department of Urology， the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of XinJiang Medical University, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830000, China；
3. People′s Hospital of XinJiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830001, China
Abstract：Objective To compare the effects of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy (FURL) for the treatment of solitary kidney subrenal calyx calculus 2-3 cm. Methods The clinical data of 96 cases of isolated kidney stone and treated in Baoan Central Hospital of Shenzhen from April 2013 to February 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the different treatment methods, they were divided into MPCNL group (52 cases) and FURL group (44 cases), and the stone clearance rate, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, 24 hours postoperatively hemoglobin drop value and 24 hours postoperatively serum creatinine elevation value, surgical complications, and calculi composition were compared between the two groups. Results The phase 1 calculi clearance rate of MPCNL group was higher than that of FURL group (P < 0.05), but the total stone clearance rate of both groups were compared, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The operation time of MPCNL group was shorter than that of FURL group (P < 0.01), but the intraoperative bleeding of MPCNL group higher than that of FURL group (P < 0.01), the length of hospital stay of MPCNL group was longer than that of FURL group (P < 0.01). The 24 hours postoperatively hemoglobin drop value of MPCNL group was higher than that of FURL group (P < 0.01), the 24 hours postoperativedy serum creatinine elevation value of both groups were compared, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The surgical complications of MPCNL group and FURL group were compared, the difference was not statistically significant (P < 0.05). The calculi composition of both groups were compared, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion In the treatment of solitary kidney subrenal calyx calculus 2-3 cm, although the phase 1 calculi clearance rate of MPCNL is higher than FURL, FURL is less bleeding, and the length of hospital stay is shorter, which could be used as an alternative treatment to some extent.
[1] Koga S，Arakaki Y，Matsuoka M，et al. Staghorn calculi：long-term results of management [J]. Br J Urol，1991，68（2）：122-124.
[2] Zeng G，Zhu w，Li J，et al. the comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones larger than 2 cm in patients with a so1itary kidney：a matched-pair analysis [J]. World J urol，2015，33（8）：1159-1164.
[3] Türk C，Petrik A，Sarica K，et al. EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis [J]. Eur Urol，2016，69（3）：468-74.
[4] Jackman SV，Hedican SP，Peters CA，et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool are children：experience with a new technique [J]. Urology，1998，52（4）：697-701.
[5] Zeng G，Zhao Z，Wan S，et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for simple and complex renal caliceal stones：a comparative analysis of more than 10 000 cases [J]. J Endourol，2013，27（10）：1203-1208.
[6] De lRJ，Denstedt J，Geavlete P，et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study：indications，complications，and outcomes in 11 885 patients [J]. J Endourol，2014，28（2）：131-9.
[7] Assimos D，Krambeck A，Miler NL，et al. Surgial management of stones：American urological association/endoulogical society guideline，PART I [J]. J urol，2016，196（4）：1161-1169.
[8] Giusti G，Proietti S，Villa L，et al. Current stangard technique for modern flexible ureteroscopy：tips and tricks [J]. Eur Urol，2016，70（1）：188-194.
[9] Levey AS，Coresh J，Balk E，et al. National kidney foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease：evaluation，classification，and stratification [J]. Ann Intern Med， 2003，139（2）：137-147.
[10] Ghani KR，Jr JSW. What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? [J]. Nat Rev urol，2015，12（5）：281-288.
[11] 李新德，陈岳兵，许力为，等.影响体外冲击波碎石术疗效的因素分析[J].中华泌尿外科杂志，2005，26（5）：321-23.
[12] Akman T，Binbay M，Ozgor F，et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2-4 cm stones：a matched-pair analysis [J]. BJU Int，2012，109（9）：1384-1389.
[13] 林海利，郑周达，杨明根，等.经皮肾镜与输尿管软镜在孤立肾结石的应用比较[J].中国微创外科杂志，2016， 16（4）：301-303.
[14] 程跃，谢国海，严泽军，等.逆行输尿管软镜联合可视微通道经皮肾镜一期治疗鹿角行肾结石的临床分析[J].中华泌尿外科杂志，2016，37（2）：127-130.
[15] 齐勇，翁国斌，汤春波，等.斜仰截石位多镜联合一期治疗复杂性肾结石[J].中国微创外科杂志，2017，17（1）：59-61.
[16] 程跃，施小东，胡嘉盛，等.电子输尿管软镜下或激光碎石术[J].中国内镜杂志，2011，17（2）：212-217.
[17] Akman T，Binbay M，Ozgor F，et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2-4 cm stones：a matched-pair analysis [J]. BJU Int，2012，109（9）：1384-1389.
[18] 高小峰，李凌，彭泳涵，等.输尿管软镜联合钬激光治疗2～4cm肾结石疗效分析[J].微创泌尿外科杂志，2013， 2（1）：47-49.
[19] Geavlete P，Multescu R，Geavlete B. Influence of pyelocaliceal anantomy on the success of flexible urereroscopic approach [J]. J Endourol，2008，22（10）：2235-2239.
[20] 刘凌琪，杨嗣星，吴天鹏，等.孤立肾结石患者电子输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术后出现尿脓毒血症的诊治分析[J].临床泌尿外科杂志，2013，28（12）：897-899.
2018, Vol. 15 
京公网安备 11010502046598号