王官峰 陳如 馬鋒
·論著·
輸尿管軟鏡碎石術聯(lián)合微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術治療部分鹿角狀腎結的臨床療效分析
王官峰 陳如 馬鋒
目的 分析輸尿管軟鏡碎石術聯(lián)合微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術治療鹿角狀結石的臨床療效。方法 部分鹿角狀腎結石患者84例,隨機分為A、B兩組,每組各42例。A組患者以俯臥位接受常規(guī)微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術,B組患者以改良Valdivia體位接受輸尿管軟鏡碎石術聯(lián)合微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術。記錄兩組患者術后的無石率及并發(fā)癥情況。結果 B組和A組患者的手術時間分別為(106.44±18.46)分鐘和(83.69±10.29)分鐘,差異有統(tǒng)計學意義(P<0.05)。B組患者的首次碎石術后無石率為85.71%,出血量為(70.02±9.15)ml ,A組患者分別為59.52%和(87.41±9.89)ml,兩組比較,差異有統(tǒng)計學意義,(P<0.05)。兩組患者術后的常見并發(fā)癥均為發(fā)熱(體溫>38.5℃),但差異無顯著統(tǒng)計學意義(P>0.05)。結論 與單純微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術比較,輸尿管軟鏡碎石術聯(lián)合微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術治療部分鹿角狀腎結石手術時間更短,出血量更少,首次碎石術后無石率高,且未見明顯并發(fā)癥。
輸尿管軟鏡碎石術; 微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術; 鹿角狀腎結石; 無石率
腎結石是一種常見的泌尿系統(tǒng)疾病,男性發(fā)病多于女性,患者多表現(xiàn)為腰部酸脹不適或刀割樣陣發(fā)性疼痛。鹿角狀腎結石在臨床上較為常見,患者多無典型的臨床癥狀,發(fā)現(xiàn)時結石已形成巨大型鹿角狀,容易引起腎功能改變[1-2]。輸尿管軟鏡碎石術是治療直徑<20 mm腎結石的有效方法,最近被成功用于治療體積更大的腎結石(直徑>20 mm)[3-5]。雖然該方法不推薦用于鹿角狀腎結石的單獨治療,卻是治療經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術后殘留結石的一項重要輔助手段[6]。我們對輸尿管軟鏡碎石術聯(lián)合微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術(minimally invasive percutaneous nephrostolithotomy,MPCNL)與單獨微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術治療部分鹿角狀結石的臨床效果進行比較?,F(xiàn)報道如下。
一、對象
2012年5月~2015年12月,我院確診為部分鹿角狀腎結石患者84例,按照隨機數(shù)字表法隨機分為A、B兩組,每組各42例。A組患者以俯臥位接受常規(guī)微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術,B組患者以Galdakao-Modified Supine Valdivia(GMSV)即改良Valdivia體位接受輸尿管軟鏡碎石術聯(lián)合微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術[7]。納入標準:年齡>18歲;計算機斷層掃描尿路造影術及腹部正位片診斷為部分鹿角狀腎結石。排除標準:腎解剖異常;有經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石手術史;單腎;嚴重尿路感染及嚴重心臟或肺功能障礙。
二、方法
1.手術方法:改良Valdivia體位結合斜仰臥位和截石位2種體位,術中患者斜仰臥,患側軀體與床平面呈20°~30°夾角。上肢懸掛于胸前,兩腿分開置于腿架上,患側稍低,對側略外展。所有患者術前行常規(guī)實驗室檢查、尿液分析及敏感試驗,尿路感染患者術前7天和術后5天根據(jù)尿液培養(yǎng)結果接受抗生素治療。A組患者實施全身麻醉后將輸尿管導管插入輸尿管上段,F(xiàn)18弗利導管留置于膀胱。患者取仰臥位,G18穿刺針在超聲指導下接受腎盞穿刺。0.035in導絲由穿刺針進入腎盂,使用Amplatz擴張器分3步完成通道的擴張,分別為8 F、16 F及20 F。腎鏡下選用500 μm光纖的Ho:YAG激光碎石,根據(jù)結石硬度不同激光能量在1.0~1.5 J,頻率在15~20 Hz范圍變化。手術完成后,常規(guī)留置6 F雙J支架和16 F腎造瘺管。B組患者術前均留置雙J管至少1周被動擴張輸尿,取改良Valdivia體位,MPCNL手術方法與上述相似,同時接受逆行腎內(nèi)手術。親水絲置入腎盂,用于指導輸尿管鏡鞘引入。選用200 μm光纖的Ho:YAG激光碎石,能量設為0.8~1.5 J,頻率設為15~30 Hz。
2.觀察指標:記錄兩組患者的手術時間、住院時間、出血量、經(jīng)皮腎鏡通道數(shù)、首次治療術后無石率及最終無石率,并記錄兩組患者的內(nèi)臟損傷、術后發(fā)熱、尿漏、尿膿毒病、顯著出血(>500 ml)、輸血、栓塞及腎切除術等并發(fā)癥。術后5~7天,采用腹部正位平片診斷殘留結石,評估無石率。若腹部正位平片無法診斷殘留結石或陰性結石患者,可采用計算機斷層掃描尿路造影術方法鑒定。臨床殘余結石(最大直徑≥4 mm)患者接受輔助治療,包括體外沖擊波碎石術、經(jīng)皮腎造瘺手術及輸尿管軟鏡碎石術。若殘留結石直徑均<4 mm,認為碎石無臨床意義。出血量定義為術中灌流液及尿液中的血紅蛋白總量。
三、統(tǒng)計學分析
1.兩組患者的基線特征見表1。兩組患者年齡、體重指數(shù)、性別、結石特征及腎積水程度等指標比較差異均無統(tǒng)計學意義(P>0.05)。
2.兩組患者臨床效果比較見表2。B組和A組患者的手術時間分別為[(106.44±18.46)分鐘和(83.69±10.29)分鐘,兩組比較,差異有統(tǒng)計學意義(P<0.05)。B組和A組患者首次治療術后無石率分別為85.71% 和59.52%,出血量[(70.02±9.15)ml 和(87.41±9.89)ml,兩組比較,差異有統(tǒng)計學意義(P<0.05)。兩組患者最終無石率、經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術通道數(shù)及住院時間等比較,差異無統(tǒng)計學意義。
表1 兩組患者基線特征比較
注:與A組相比,aP>0.05
表2 兩組患者的治療情況
注:與A組比較,aP<0.05
3.兩組患者并發(fā)癥比較見表3。兩組患者術后的常見并發(fā)癥均為發(fā)熱(體溫>38.5℃),但組間比較差異無顯著統(tǒng)計學意義(P>0.05)。A組中有4例患者中有尿膿毒病(2例因大腸桿菌引起,2例因糞腸球菌引起),B組有3例(均為大腸桿菌引起),但差異無顯著統(tǒng)計學意義(P>0.05)。兩組患者尿漏、輸血及栓塞等并發(fā)癥等比較差異無統(tǒng)計學意義。
表3 兩組患者并發(fā)癥比較(例,%)
注:與A組相比,aP>0.05
機體代謝異常、尿路梗阻、感染及藥物是腎結石形成的常見病因。根據(jù)美國泌尿?qū)W會指南,鹿角狀腎結石最有效的治療方式是經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術,單獨經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術后的無石率可達65%[8]。多通道經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術后的無石率更高,但與通道相關的并發(fā)癥也隨之增加。俯臥位有利于經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術,可減少內(nèi)臟損傷機會,常用于經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術[9-10]。但是,該臥位不適用于內(nèi)窺鏡結合腎內(nèi)鏡手術(endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery,ECIRS)。Cracco等[11]報道,ECIRS治療復雜尿石病時使用改良Valdivia體位,具有較高的無石率,且不產(chǎn)生手術并發(fā)癥。
單中心試驗結果顯示,與單獨微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術比較,MPCNL治療鹿角狀結石具有更高的首次無石率。另外,B組患者所用的手術時間雖然高于A組,但術中的平均出血量顯著低于A組。因此,ECIRS可能是處理體積較大腎結石的有效方法,它允許輸尿管軟鏡碎石術與微創(chuàng)經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術的同時應用,一定程度上可互補兩種方法發(fā)揮治療時存在的弊端。腎盞中的分支結石或殘留結石能夠在輸尿管軟鏡下粉碎,產(chǎn)生的碎片可同時由經(jīng)皮通道去除[12-14]。另外,一些結石可在輸尿管軟鏡下重新定位到腎盂,方便了腎鏡檢查下行碎石術。與標準經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術比較,MPCNL技術大大降低了對患者組織及血管的損傷。Zhu 等[15]的一項Meta分析基于共749例患者的8項試驗比較了MPCNL與標準PCNL技術的臨床結局,結果表示二者具有相似的無石率,但前組患者的血紅蛋白下降水平、輸血率及疼痛程度更低,且住院時間更短。本研究中,兩組共有9例患者發(fā)生明顯出血,其中4例需要輸血。兩組患者在尿膿毒病、尿漏及栓塞等手術并發(fā)癥方面均無顯著性差異。
[1] Gu SP,Zeng GH,You ZY,et al.Types of Renal Calculi and Management Regimen for Chinese Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy[J].Indian J Surg,2015,77(Suppl 3):872-876.
[2] Deutsch PG,Subramonian K.Conservative Management of Staghorn Calculi:A Single Centre Experience[J].BJU Int,2016,118(3):444-450.
[3] Xu G,Wen J,Li Z,et al.A comparative study to analyze the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy combined with holmium laser lithotripsy for residual calculi after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy[J].Int J Clin Exp Med,2015,8(3):4501e4507.
[4] Wilhelm K,F(xiàn)rankenschmidt A,Miernik A.Analgesia-free flexible ureteroscopictreatment and laserlithotripsyfor removal of a large urinary stone:a case report[J].J Med Case Rep,2015,2(9):225.
[5] Ding J,Huang Y,Gu S,et al.Flexible Ureteroscopic Management of Horseshoe Kidney Renal Calculi[J].Int Braz J Urol,2015,41(4):683-689.
[6] Takazawa R,Kitayama S,Tsujii T.Appropriate kidney stone size for ureteroscopic lithotripsy:When to switch to a percutaneous approach[J].World J Nephrol,2015,4(1):111-117.
[7] Llanes L,Sáenz J,Gamarra M,et al.Reproducibility of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the Galdakao-modifiedsupine Valdivia position[J].Urolithiasis,2013,41(4):333-340.
[8] Song W,Kwon YS,Jeon SS,et al.Refining the American Urological Association and American Society for Radiation Oncology guideline for adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy using the pathologic Gleason score[J].Asian J Androl,2017,19(1):20-25.
[9] Yuan D,Liu Y,Rao H,et al.Supine Versus Prone Position in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Calculi:A Meta-Analysis[J].J Endourol,2016,30(7):754-763.
[10]Izol V,Aridogan IA,Borekoglu A,et al.Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone position in patients with spinal deformities[J].Int J Clin Exp Med,2015,8(11):21053-21061.
[11]Cracco CM,Scoffone CM.ECIRS(Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery)in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position:a new life for percutaneous surgery[J].World J Urol,2011,29(6):821-827.
[12]曾光,劉同族,肖和,等.電子輸尿管軟鏡碎石取石術與經(jīng)皮腎鏡碎石取石術治療腎盂大型結石(長徑>2cm)的療效比較[J].臨床外科雜志,2015,23(12):947-948.
[13]Giusti G,Proietti S,Luciani LG,et al.Is retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of renal stones with diameters exceeding 2 cm still a hazard[J].Can J Urol,2014,21(2):7207-7212.
[15]Zhu W,Liu L,Lei M,et al.Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy:a meta-analysis[J].Urolithiasis,2015,43(6):563e570.
(本文編輯:徐文聃)
Clinical efficacy analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy combined with percutaneous nephrolithotomy treating for patients with staghorn calculi
WANGGuanfeng,CHENRu,MAFeng.
(DepartmentofUrinarySurgery,the3201HanzhongCityHospitalofShanxiProvince,Hanzhong723000,China)
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy combined with percutaneous nephrolithotomy treating for partial staghorn calculi.Methods 84 patients diagnosed as partial staghorn calculi in our hospital were randomly divided into group A and B with each group 42 patients.Patients in group A
the conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the prone position,and patients in group B received the percutaneous nephrolithotomy combined with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the modified Valdivia position.The post-operative stone free rate and complications were recorded.Results The surgery time in group B was longer than that in group A [(106.44±18.46)min vs(83.69±10.29)min],with statistically significant difference(P<0.05).However,the first stone free rate in group B was higher than that in group A(85.71% vs 59.52%,P<0.05),and the blood loss in group B was lower than that in group A [(70.02±9.15)ml vs(87.41±9.89)ml,P<0.05].The common complication of patients in two groups was fever(temperature >38.5℃),but there was no notably difference between the two group(P>0.05).Conclusion Compared with the regular percutaneous nephrolithotomy,flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy combined with percutaneous nephrolithotomy treating partial staghorn calculi has the shorter operation time,the less blood volume and the higher first stone free rate.Furthermore,the combination method did not significantly increasing the incidence of patient’s complication.
flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy; percutaneous nephrolithotomy; partial staghorn calculi; stone free rate
10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2017.04.021
723000 陜西省漢中市三二零一醫(yī)院泌尿外科
2016-08-03)