Search

经输尿管软镜钬激光治疗盆腔异位肾伴结石一例

Safety and effectiveness of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review

ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus transurethral plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP) in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsRandomized controlled trials of HoLEP versus PKEP in the treatment of BPH published between January 2000 and March 2021 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP database, and Wanfang database. Operative duration, estimated intraoperative blood loss, average duration of urinary catheterization, average duration of bladder irrigation, average length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were used as safety evaluation indicators. Postoperative International Prostatic Symptomatic Score (IPSS), postoperative maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postoperative quality of life (QoL), and postvoid residual (PVR) were used as effective evaluation indicators.ResultsA total of 14 randomized controlled trials were included in this study, with a total of 1 478 patients (744 in the HoLEP group and 734 in the PKEP group). The results of the meta-analysis showed that the intraoperative blood loss in the HoLEP group was less than that in the PKEP group [weighted mean difference (WMD)=−25.95 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−31.65, 20.25) mL, P=0.025], the average duration of urinary catheterization [WMD=−10.35 h, 95%CI (−18.25, −2.45) h, P=0.042], average duration of bladder irrigation [WMD=−10.28 h, 95%CI (−17.52, −3.04) h, P=0.038], and average length of hospital stay [WMD=−1.24 d, 95%CI (−1.85, −0.62) d, P=0.033] in the HoLEP group were shorter than those in the PKEP group, and the incidence of postoperative complications [risk ratio=0.70, 95%CI (0.56, 0.87), P=0.047] and 6-month postoperative Qmax [WMD=−0.89 m/s, 95%CI (−1.74, −0.05) m/s, P=0.037] in the HoLEP group were lower than those in the PKEP group. However, there was no significant difference in the operative duration, 3-month postoperative IPSS, 3-month postoperative Qmax, 3-month postoperative QoL, 3-month postoperative PVR, 6-month postoperative IPSS, 6-month postoperative QoL, or 6-month postoperative PVR between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsIn the treatment of BPH, the effectiveness of HoLEP does not differ from that of PKEP, but HoLEP is safer. The conclusions of this study need to be verified in more precisely designed and larger sample-sized multi-center randomized controlled trials.

Holmium Laser Combined with Choledochoscopy for Treatment of Refractory Intra-Hepatic or Extra-Hepatic Bile Duct Stones

目的 探讨经胆道镜联合钬激光碎石治疗肝内外胆管难取性结石的价值。方法 纤维胆道镜窥视下用钬激光碎石治疗肝内外胆管难取性结石29例，观察临床效果。结果 经1～3次胆道镜下钬激光碎石治疗，28例患者结石全部取尽，1例未完全取净，成功率为96.55%（28/29）； 近期无胆道出血、漏胆、黄疸等并发症发生。26例获得随访，随访时间6～20个月，平均13个月，未发现结石复发及胆管狭窄。结论 经胆道镜钬激光碎石是一种治疗肝内外胆管难取性结石简便、安全及有效的方法。

输尿管软镜钬激光碎石治疗肾输尿管上段结石150例

目的 评价输尿管软镜钬激光碎石治疗肾输尿管上段结石的效果，探讨操作技巧。 方法 2010年9月－2014年9月行输尿管软镜钬激光碎石治疗的肾输尿管上段结石患者150例，结石直径为0.8～4.2 cm。早期患者均先置F5双J管2周，再行输尿管软镜碎石。自2014年起均采用直接一期输尿管软镜碎石，术后3～5 d及术后4周复查腹部X线片及CT，评价碎石及排石效果。 结果 输尿管软镜一次性进镜率98.7%（148/150）；碎石成功率98.7%（148/150）；结石清除率97.3%（146/150）；手术时间20～126 min，平均40 min。2例术后出现尿源性败血症，经治疗缓解。 结论 输尿管软镜钬激光碎石手术创伤小，恢复快，并发症发生率低，结石排净率高，是治疗肾输尿管上段结石安全有效的方法。

Efficacy and Safety of Holmium Laser Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review

Objective　To access the efficacy and safety of Holmium laser prostatectomy technique compared to TURP. Methods　We searched MEDLINE (1996 to 2004), EMBASE (1984 to 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004), CNKI, VIP, CMCC and CBMdisc; and handsearched the relevant Chinese journals. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included. The quality of trials was evaluated and meta-analysis was performed. Non-randomized controlled trials were also included to evaluate the safety and efficacy. Results　We found 4 randomized controlled trials. A total of 480 participants were in the trials ranging from 60 to 200. There was no statistical difference between the two techniques at 12 or 48 months follow-up in terms of quality of life (QOL) improvement（WMD=-0.19, 95%CI -0.81 to 0.44, Z=0.59, P=0.56; WMD=-0.30, 95%CI -0.90 to 0.30, Z=0.98, P=0.33); Qmax improvement（WMD=1.63 ml/s, 95%CI -0.32 to 3.59, Z=1.64, P=0.10; WMD=3.80 ml/s, 95%CI -1.36 to 8.96,Z=1.44, P=0.15); I-PSS or AUA (WMD=-0.06, 95%CI -1.01 to 0.89, Z=0.12, P=0.91; WMD=-1.40, 95%CI -3.91 to 1.11, Z=1.09, P=0.27) and the urethral stricture complication rate (RR=0.75, 95%CI 0.35 to 1.60, Z=0.74, P=0.46). However hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Holmium laser prostatectomy groups (total WMD=-24.89, 95%CI -28.56 to -21.21, Z=13.27, P＜0.000 01). We can not draw consistent conclusions in terms of blood loss according to the present data. One study indicated Holmium laser prostatectomy technique was more cost-effective than TURP. Conclusions　In short period Holmium laser prostatectomy is as safe as TURP in terms of hospital stay, urethral stricture and blood loss complication. This new technique is as effiective as TURP in terms of I-PSS (AUA), Qmax and QOL. More RCTs and more long term follow-up is necessary.

Endoscopic reverse biliary tract stent placement via choledochus in treatment of situs inversus totalis complicated with choledocholithiasis

ObjectiveTo summarize experience of endoscopic reverse biliary tract stent placement via choledochus in treatment of situs inversus totalis complicated with choledocholithiasis.MethodThe clinical data of one patient with situs inversus totalis complicated with choledocholithiasis in the Department of Tumor Surgery of Lanzhou University Second Hospital were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsThe ERCP was failed at the first admission, followed by the cholecystectomy plus choledocholithotomy plus T-tube drainage, the stones were removed. Two months later, choledochoscopy revealed multiple choledocholithiasis, then the holmium laser lithotripsy and bile duct stent placement was performed at the secondary admission, the postoperative recovery was good, it had been more than 2 months after the surgery, no stone recurrence occurred.ConclusionEndoscopic reverse biliary tract stent placement via choledochus is feasible, which can be used as an option for treatment of patient with situs inversus totalis complicated with choledocholithiasis.

Flexible Ureteroscopy Combined with Holmium Laser Lithotripsy for Renal Stones of Longer than 2 cm in Diameter

ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for renal stones of longer than 2 cm in diameter. MethodsFrom August 2012 to July 2014, 15 selected patients with renal calculi of longer than 2 cm in diameter underwent flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with holmium laser by the same surgeon. Preoperative indwelling ureteral stent was performed for 1-2 weeks, and super smooth guidewire was inserted after checking and dilation of the ureter was performed with F8.0/9.8 rigid ureterosope. Flexible ureteroscope sheath was inserted through guidewire. Ureterosope was followed by flexible ureteroscope sheath. Larger stone fragments were removed by basket. ResultsThe success rate of ureteroscopic insertion was 100% and no severe intraoperative complications occurred. The operation time ranged from 50 to 125 minutes averaging 75. No ureteral perforations or pyonephrosis or acute renal insufficiency occurred. Four patients had high fever after operation and improved after positive anti-infection treatment. After 2 days, the stone-free rate was 73.3% (11/15) by reviewing KUB. The follow-up of 4 weeks showed the stone-free rate was 86.7% (13/15). One case of stone fragments retained in the middle and lower ureter and the fragments were taken out by ureteroscopic lithotripsy. The other case of renal residual calculi was operated by flexible ureteroscope holmium laser lithotripsy in two stage. ConclusionFlexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy is a favorable option for patients with renal stones of longer than 2 cm in diameter, especially for recurrent renal calculi.

医护合作-快速康复模式在经输尿管镜钬激光碎石术中的应用及效果评价

目的 探讨医护合作-快速康复模式在经输尿管镜钬激光碎石手术中的临床应用及效果的评价。 方法 将 2015 年 10 月—2016 年 3 月入住的 166 例输尿管结石患者随机分为对照组和试验组各 83 例，对照组按传统方法进行住院治疗及围手术期护理，试验组按照医护合作-快速康复模式进行诊治及护理，包括门诊评估、术前检查的完善、麻醉评估、流程办理、家庭护理的注意事项、围手术期的饮食活动指导和疼痛管理、健康保健等。比较两组患者的住院时间、住院费用、术后并发症、术后首次进食时间和满意度的差异。 结果 试验组患者住院时间[（22.46±0.89）h]少于对照组[（76.46±0.75）h]，住院费用[（8 275.21±789.45）元]低于对照组[（12 859.11±1 047.54）元]，并发症发生率[10.8%（9/83）]低于对照组[41.0%（34/83）]，患者满意度[（99.87±5.12）%]高于对照组[90.66±5.95）%]，差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。 结论 医护合作-快速康复模式应用于输尿管镜钬激光碎石手术，能充分利用医疗资源，促进医患关系协调，缩短患者的住院日，减少患者的住院费用，降低术后并发症的发生，促进术后康复，早日恢复患者的正常生活。

经皮肾镜钬激光碎石术治疗肾脏巨大铸型结石的护理

目的　讨论经皮肾镜钬激光碎石术治疗肾脏巨大铸型结石患者的护理方法及体会。 方法　2011年1月－2012年10月，对收治的10例肾脏巨大铸型结石患者行经皮肾镜钬激光碎石术，并针对病症特点给予精心的护理。 结果　9例患者行一、二期经皮肾镜钬激光碎石术后，其结石清除率平均达91.8%，术后恢复良好，无严重并发症发生治愈出院；1例患者因结石过大，继续行体外冲击波碎石三期手术后好转出院。 结论　精心细致的护理方法与措施是确保患者早日康复的重要因素。

Efficacy and safety of transurethral bipolar plasmakinetic prostatectomy versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review

ObjectivesTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the transurethral bipolar plasmakinetic prostatectomy (TUPKP) versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of TUPKP and HoLEP for treatment of BPH from inception to January 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, the meta-analyses were performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 9 RCTs involving 784 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that, in efficacy outcomes, TUPKP was superior to HoLEP in Qmax at 48 months, and was inferior to HoLEP in PVR at 3 months, Qmax in 60 and 72 months, and IIEF-5 at 48 and 72 months. No significant association was found between two groups in Qmax from 1 to 36 months, IPSS from 1 to 72 months, prostate volume, PVR from 6 months, IIEF-5 from 1 to 24 months, QoL at 1 to 36 months, and resected prostate weight. As for safety, TUPKP was superior to HoLEP in operation time, while inferior to HoLEP in blood loss during procedure, hospital stay, catheterization period, bladder irrigation period, irrigation fluid, massive hemorrhage and hematuresis. No significant association was observed between two groups in serum sodium decrease, hemoglobin decrease, PSA, postoperative urine retention, blood transfusion, cystospasm, temporary incontinence, urinary tract infection, TURS, epididymitis, temporary difficulty in urination, urinary tract irritation syndrome, reoperation, retrograde ejaculation, urinary incontinence, ED and urethrostenosis.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that the efficacy and safety of TUPKP and HoLEP for treatment of BPH are similar. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.