论文部分内容阅读
目的对比R.E.N.A.L.评分系统与改良R.E.N.A.L.评分系统在后腹腔镜保留肾单位手术中的应用价值。方法回顾性分析42例T1a期肾肿瘤患者的临床资料,采用R.E.N.A.L.评分系统及改良R.E.N.A.L.评分系统进行评分并比较,其中R.E.N.A.L.评分系统按评分分为高值(A组)、中值(B组)、低值(C组),改良R.E.N.A.L.评分系统按评分分为高值(D组)、中值(E组)、低值(F组)。结果 A、B、C组之间热缺血时间具有显著差异,其中C组热缺血时间最短,A组最长,差异均具有统计学意义(P均<0.05);D、E、F组之间的术中出血量、手术时间、热缺血时间均存在明显差异(P均<0.05)。结论改良R.E.N.A.L.评分系统可以更为客观的评估腹腔镜下保留肾单位手术的难度及手术风险,符合临床实际需求。
Objective To compare the value of R.E.N.A.L. scoring system and modified R.E.N.A.L. scoring system in laparoscopic nephron surgery. Methods The clinical data of 42 patients with stage T1a renal tumors were retrospectively analyzed. The RENAL score system and the modified RENAL score system were used to evaluate the scores. The RENAL score system was divided into high value (group A), medium value (group B) , Low value (group C). The modified RENAL scoring system was divided into high value (group D), medium value (group E) and low value (group F). Results The warm ischemic time was significantly different between groups A, B and C, with the shortest warm ischemic time in group C and the longest in group A (all P <0.05). In groups D, E and F The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, warm ischemia time were significantly different (P all <0.05). Conclusion The modified R.E.N.A.L. scoring system can be more objective assessment of laparoscopic nephron surgery to retain the degree of difficulty and surgical risk, in line with clinical practical needs.