ObjectiveTo investigate clinical efficacy of percutaneous nephroscope in treatment of patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). MethodsEighty-six patients with SAP in this hospital from August 2012 to November 2015 were selected, which were divided into percutaneous nephroscope treatment group (43 cases) and laparotomy treat-ment group (43 cases) according to the difference of therapy modality. The conventional drug therapy was performed for all of them. The postoperative recovery, content of serum C reactive protein (CRP) on day 14 after operation, and post-operative complications were observed in these two groups. Results① The abdominal pain relief time, postoperative bowel sounds recovery time, normal body temperature recovery time, and postoperative hospitalization time in the percu-taneous nephroscope treatment group were significantly shorter than those in the laparotomy treatment group (P<0.05). ② The contents of serum CRP in the percutaneous nephroscope treatment group and in the laparotomy treatment group on day 14 after operation were significantly lower than those on day 1 before operation[(8.35±2.13) mg/L versus (31.44±3.45) mg/L, P<0.05; (16.42±2.44) mg/L versus (32.09±2.98) mg/L, P<0.05]. On day 14 after operation, the content of serum CRP in the percutaneous nephroscope treatment group was significantly lower than that in the laparotomy treat-ment group[(8.35±2.13) mg/L versus (16.42±2.44) mg/L, P<0.05]. ③ The incidence rate of postoperative complications in the percutaneous nephroscope treatment group was significantly lower than that in the laparotomy treatment group[14.0% (6/43) versus 32.6% (14/43), P<0.05]. ConclusionPercutaneous nephroscope in treatment of patients with SAP is effect, it has advantages of shorter hospital stay and early recovery, which could reduce incidence of postoperative complications, and it's mechanism might be related to systemic inflammatory response.
【摘要】 目的 探讨微创经皮肾镜碎石术后并发感染性休克的原因和防治措施。 方法 回顾性分析2005年1月-2010年12月5例经皮肾镜术300例，其中术后并发感染性休克5例的临床资料。男1例，女4例，均表现为术后2~8 h内出现寒战、高热、烦燥不安，血压降至80/50 mm Hg（1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa）以下，心率超过120次/min。所有患者均行抗感染和抗休克治疗。 结果 所有患者均在72 h内停用升压药，1周内体温及血常规恢复正常，术后15 d治愈出院。 结论 感染性休克是微创经皮肾镜碎石术严重的并发症之一，术前有效抗感染、术中低压灌注、术后加强生命体征的监测、早期发现并合理处理，可有效防治感染性休克的发生。【Abstract】 Objective To explore the etiology and treatment of septic shock after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Methods From Janurary 2005 to December 2010, the clinical data of five patients with septic shock after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The patients, including one male and four females, had chillness and high temperature after the nephrolithotomy. The blood pressure decreased to under 80/50 mm Hg （1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa）, and the heart rate was more than 120 per minute. All patients underwent anti-shock and anti-infection therapies rapidly. Results Five patients were cured in the end, their temperature and blood routine tests returned to normal within one week. Conclusions Septic shock is one of the serious complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Effective preoperative preparation, low pressure irrigation during operation, early diagnosis and treatment postoperatively are the effective ways to prevent the septic shock.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the third-generation super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) for the treatment of kidney calculi with diameter of ≤2.5 cm and CT value of ≥700 Hu, and discuss the feasibility of adopting the technology in primary hospitals.MethodsThe clinical data of 64 patients with unilateral kidney calculi (CT value ≥700 Hu, diameter ≤2.5 cm) treated in the People’s Hospital of Leshan Central District between July 2017 and July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. After random assignment, 30 patients were treated with SMP and 34 were with mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL). The pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were compared and analyzed to evaluate the efficacy and safety.ResultsThe unilateral lesion operations of both groups were successfully completed in the first phase. All patients were given double J tubes after operation, and there were no major complications such as post-operative hemorrhage and sepsis. There was no statistically significant difference in the post-operative hemoglobin decrease, post-operative immediate stone removal rate, post-operative stone removal rate after one month, or the rate of procalcitonin >0.1 μg/L between the two groups (P>0.05). The differences in the lithotripsy time [(29.63±6.28) vs. (25.21±5.19) minutes], post-operative hospital stay [(5.33±0.61) vs. (9.44±0.96) days], rate of indwelling renal fistula (3.3% vs. 50.0%), analgesic demand rate (10.0% vs. 58.8%), and postoperative infectious fever rate (6.7% vs. 26.5%) between SMP group and MPCNL group were statistically significant (P<0.05).ConclusionsSMP has the advantages of less trauma, low systemic inflammatory response syndrome incidence, less pain, quick rehabilitation, short hospital stay, tubeless after surgery, etc. It is worthy of extensive promotion in primary hospitals.
Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscope lithtripsy (fURL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in treating renal calculus. Methods Such databases as MEDLINE, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and WanFang Data from January, 1990 to August, 2012 were searched to comprehensively collect the clinical trials that compared fURL and PCNL in treating renal calculus. Two reviewers independently screened studies according to exclusion and inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Eight non-randomized controlled trials involving 536 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, PCNL was better than fURL in stone clearance (OR=0.26, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.46), but fURL was better than PCNL in postoperative pyrexia (OR=0.1, 95%CI 0.42 to 3.35), the incidence of blood transfusion (OR=0.17, 95%CI 0.03 to 1.00), and the duration of hospitalization (P=0.45, I2=0%). Conclusion Current evidence has proved that PCNL is better than fURL in decreasing stone clearance, fURL is better than PCNL in complication, the duration of hospitalization, and medical costs.
Objective To compare clinical outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in patients who initially presented with and without urosepsis. Methods The study included patients who underwent PCNL for renal and ureter urolithiasis removal from January 2010 to December 2014 in our hospital. A 1∶1 matched-pair analysis was performed to compare outcomes and complications of patients who had obstructive urolithiasis with urosepsis initially (OUU) with patients who had obstructive urolithiasis with no urosepsis initially (NOUU) before PCNL. Results A total of 172 patients were included involving 122 (71%) males and 50 (29%) females with a mean age of 46.2 years (range 32 to 65 years). There were no significant differences between two groups in age, gender, BMI, complications, the size of the stones, stone's number and stone location (P>0.05). OUU groups had the similar stone-free rates (86.0%vs. 84.8%, P=0.829) as the NOUU group. OUU group had higher overall complications rate, longer duration of nephrostomy tube (NT), longer hospital length of stay (LOS), longer courses of postoperative antibiotics and higher grade of antibiotics after PCNL (all P<0.05). Higher fever developed postoperatively (11.6%vs. 3.5%, P=0.043), higher asymptomatic bacteriuria (11.6% vs. 3.5%, P=0.043) and symptomatic urinary tract infections (10.5% vs. 2.3%, P=0.029) were also found in OUU groups. There was no significant difference between two groups in sepsis (2.3% vs. 1.2%, P=0.560). Conclusion PCNL after decompression for urolithiasis-related urosepsis has similar success but higher complication rates than obstructive urolithiasis with no urosepsis initially.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of the tubeless approach with a ureteral stent versus nephrostomy tube for postoperative drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and to provide guidance for clinical practice. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from PubMed (1966 to August 2008), Ovid (1966 to August 2008), Embase (1966 to August 2008), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2008) and CBM (1978 to 2008). We also handsearched for relevant published and unpublished reports and check their references. The quality of the included trials was evaluated by two reviewers. We used The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.0.16 software for meta-analysis. Results Eight studies involving 507 patients were included. We divided the patients into three groups: small (8~9 Fr), medium (16~18 Fr) and large (20~24 Fr) according to the diameter of nephrostomy tube for the analysis. Our meta-analyses showed: ①Hospital stay (hours): There was no statistically significant difference between tubeless and small bore tubes, but a difference was found in the comparison of tubeless versus medium and large bore tubes [WMD (95%CI) –32.4 (–33.64, –31.16) and –39.07 (–67.75, –10.39), respectively]; ② Puncture site urinary leakage: No statistically significant difference was found between tubeless and small bore tubes, of between tubeless versus medium tubes [RR= 0.07, 95%CI (0.00, 1.15), P=0.06]; ③ Visual analogue scale scores for postoperative pain on Day 1: There was no statistically significant difference between tubeless and small bore tubes, but there was a difference in tubeless versus medium and large bore tubes [MD (95%CI) –2.80 (–2.94, –2.66) and –2.04 (–2.29, –1.79), respectively];④No statistically significant difference was found in transfusion, fever or infection and operating time between tubeless and any size of nephrostomy tube. Conclusion No statistically significant difference between tubeless versus small bore tubes is found for any of the outcome measurements we analysed. Compared with medium and large bore tubes, tubeless PCNL of ureteral stent could reduce hospital stay, urine leakage and postoperative pain without an increase in complications. There is a moderate possibility of selection bias, performance bias and publication bias in this review, because of the small number of the included studies, which weakens the strength of the evidence of our results. Better evidence from more high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed.