论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较标准通道联合微通道与标准单通道经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)治疗鹿角形肾结石的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2012年6月~2013年12月采用PCNL治疗76例鹿角形肾结石的临床资料。42例行标准通道联合微通道经皮肾镜取石术(治疗组),34例行标准单通道经皮肾镜取石术(对照组)。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、并发症发生率、住院时间及结石清除率等。结果:治疗组手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院天数、并发症发生率与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),分别为(108.5±10.3)min vs.(113.7±12.5)min,(87.1±13.6)ml vs.(89.3±12.7)ml,(8.8±2.3)d vs.(9.3±2.6)d,11.9%(5/42)vs.11.8%(4/34);治疗组一期结石清除率高于对照组,为92.9%(39/42)vs.82.4%(28/34)(P<0.05)。结论:标准通道联合微通道经皮肾镜取石术与标准单通道经皮肾镜取石术具有同样的安全性,但是具有更高的结石清除率。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of standard channel combined microchannel and standard single channel percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of antler kidney stones. Methods: The clinical data of 76 cases of antler kidney stones treated with PCNL from June 2012 to December 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Forty-two patients received standard single-channel percutaneous nephrolithotomy (control group) and 42 patients received standard micro-channel percutaneous nephrolithotomy (treatment group). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complication rate, hospital stay and stone clearance rate were compared between the two groups. Results: The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and complication rate in the treatment group were not significantly different from those in the control group (P> 0.05), they were (108.5 ± 10.3) min vs. (113.7 ± 12.5 ) min (87.1 ± 13.6) ml vs. (89.3 ± 12.7) ml, (8.8 ± 2.3) d vs. (9.3 ± 2.6) days, 11.9% (5/42) vs.11.8% (4/34), respectively; The stone removal rate in primary treatment group was 92.9% (39/42) vs 82.4% (28/34) (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Standard access and microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy have the same safety as standard single-channel percutaneous nephrolithotomy but have a higher rate of stone clearance.