摘要
目的比较2种微创方法治疗输尿管上段结石的临床疗效。方法选取2010年5月—2012年12月在杭州市萧山区第一人民医院治疗输尿管上段结石的患者140例为研究对象,根据不同微创治疗的患者分为微创经皮肾穿刺取石术(mPCNL)和体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL),每组70例,比较2组患者的手术时间、住院时间、术中出血量、一次手术成功率、治疗有效率以及并发症发生率等。结果 ESWL组患者的手术时间和住院时间均短于mPCNL组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);mPCNL组患者术中出血量为(68.2±20.3)ml;2组患者一次手术成功率和治疗有效率比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);2组并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对于输尿管上段较小结石,症状较轻患者可选用体外冲击波碎石术,而对于合并输尿管畸形或结石较大的患者应选用微创经皮肾穿刺取石术。
Objective To compare the clinical effects of MPCNL and ESWL for the upper ureteral calculi. Methods From May 2010 to May 2012,140 cases of upper ureteral calculi in our hospital were recruited and divided into minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy（mPCNL） group（ n = 70） and extraeorporeal shock wave lithotfipsy（ESWL） group （ n = 70 ）. The operation duration ,hospital stay, perioperative bleeding, primary success rate of operation, effective rate of treatment and incidence of complications were compared among the three groups. Results The operation duration and hospital stay in ESWL group were shorter than those in mPCNL group, the differences were statistically significant（ P 〈 O. 05 ） ; The perioperative bleeding of the mPCNL group was （ 68.2 ± 20.3 ） ml ; The statistically differences in the primary success rate of operation and effective rate of treatment, but not in the incidence of complications, were found between two group（ P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusion For the smaller upper ureteral calculi and lighter symptom, ESWL should be selected; while for the large upper ureteral calculi or combined ureteral deformity, mPCNL should be the better choice.
出处
《中华全科医学》
2014年第5期728-729,共2页
Chinese Journal of General Practice
关键词
输尿管上段结石
微创经皮肾穿刺取石术
体外冲击波碎石术
Upper ureteral calculi
Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotrip-sy （ESWL）
