三种手术方式治疗肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻的疗效及并发症比较

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2016.05.012

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的：探讨开放肾盂成形术、腹腔镜肾盂成形术以及腔内手术治疗肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻（ureteropelvic junction obstruction，UPJO）的疗效，并比较各项相关围手术期数据。方法：回顾性分析2004年1月至2014年12月于北京大学人民医院进行手术的109例UPJO病例，分为开放肾盂成形术组（32例）、腹腔镜肾盂成形术组（31例）和腔内手术组（46例），术后平均随访时间（51.9±40.1）个月（6～132个月）。将各组手术时间、术中出血量、围手术期并发症和术后住院时间等进行统计学分析。结果：全部腹腔镜手术均未中转开腹，全部腔内手术均成功完成。腹腔镜肾盂成形术组手术时间为（195.97±55.22） min，开放肾盂成形术组为（121.19±33.95） min，腔内手术组为（74.04±33.95） min，两两组间比较差异均有统计学意义（P<0.001）。开放肾盂成形术组出血量为105(15,815) mL，腹腔镜肾盂成形术组为50（10,495） mL，两组间差异无统计学意义（P=0.163）；腔内手术组为5（0,310） mL，与其他两组相比差异均有统计学意义（P<0.001）。开放肾盂成形术组术后住院时间为8（5,18） d，腹腔镜肾盂成形术组为7（3,15）d，腔内手术组为6（1，25）d，3组间差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。开放肾盂成形术组的成功率（93.8%）与腹腔镜肾盂成形术组（90.3%）间差异无统计学意义（P=0.618），而腔内手术组（69.6%）则低于另外两组（P=0.010，P=0.032）。开放肾盂成形术组、腹腔镜肾盂成形术组、腔内手术组3组的并发症发生率分别为15.6%（5/32）、16.1%（5/31）和13.0%（6/46），两两组间比较差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论：腹腔镜肾盂成形术和开放肾盂成形术相比手术时间更长，但术后住院时间短于开放肾盂成形术组;腔内手术治疗UPJO的成功率低于开放肾盂成形术和腹腔镜肾盂成形术，但其在手术时间、术中出血量和术后恢复时间方面均有明显优势。

关键词: 肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻, 肾盂成形术, 手术疗效, 并发症

Abstract:

Objective： To compare various data of open pyeloplasty, laparoscopic pyeloplasty and endopyelotomy as a treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction（UPJO）, and to investigate and discuss the feasibility and effect of the three methods. Methods: In the study, 109 cases of UPJO treated by different surgical approaches in Peking University People’s Hospital from January 2004 to December 2014 were retrospectively investigated. The patients were divided into three groups according to the treatment they received: open peyloplasty group (32 cases), laparoscopic peyloplasty group (31 cases) and endopyelotomy group (46 cases).We compared the data of the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative complications and post-operative hospital stay among the three groups. The mean follow-up time was（51.9±40.1） months (6-132 months). Results: None of the laparoscopic peyloplties was converted to open peyloplasty. All endpyelotomies were successfully completed. The operative time was as follows: laparoscopic peyloplasty group (195.97±55.22) min, open peyloplasty group (121.19±33.95) min and endopyelotomy group (74.04±33.95) min，and there were significant differences among the three groups respectively（P<0.001）. There was no significant difference on the operative blood loss between open peyloplasty group and laparoscopic peyloplasty group (P=0.163). The operative blood loss of endopyelotomy group was 5（0,310）mL，which was lower than the other two groups, and this result had significant differences with the other two groups respectively（P<0.001）. There were significant differences on the postoperative hospital stay (days) among open peyloplasty group, laparoscopic peyloplasty group and endopeylotomy group (P<0.05，respectively).The success rate was comparable between open peyloplasty group and laparoscopic peyloplasty group( 93.8% vs. 90.3%, P=0.672), while the endopeylotomy group had a lower success rate compared with both open surgery group and laparoscopic group(69.6% vs. 93.8%, P=0.01； 69.6% vs. 90.3%, P=0.048, respectively). The complication rates of open peyloplasty group, laparoscopic peyloplasty group and endopeylotomy group were comparable(15.6%, 16.1% and 13.0%, respectively, P>0.05). Conclusion: The laparoscopic peyloplasty group had a longer operative time than open peyloplasty group, while its post-operative stay was shorter. There was no significant difference on the operative blood loss between open peyloplasty group and laparoscopic peyloplasty group. Although the success rate of endopyelotomy was lower than those of the other two groups, it had advantages over the aspect of operative time, operative blood loss and post operative stay.

Key words: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction, Pyeloplasty, Operative effect, Complications

中图分类号:

R692.1

陈伟男，叶雄俊，刘士军，熊六林，黄晓波，徐涛，王晓峰. 三种手术方式治疗肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻的疗效及并发症比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(5): 817-821.

CHEN Wei-nan, YE Xiong-jun, LIU Shi-jun, XIONG Liu-lin, HUANG Xiao-bo, XU Tao, WANG Xiao-feng. Comparison of three surgical methods of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in therapeutic effect and complication[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(5): 817-821.

参考文献

相关文章 15

[1]	李伟浩,李伟,张学民,李清乐,焦洋,张韬,蒋京军,张小明. 去分支杂交手术和传统手术治疗胸腹主动脉瘤的结果比较[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(1): 177-181.
[2]	王成,孟令宇,陈拿云,李玳,王健全,敖英芳. 前交叉韧带重建术后膝关节感染的诊断和治疗策略[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(5): 850-856.
[3]	耿志宇,高为华,王东信. 全身麻醉气管插管患者术后声带运动不良的临床结局[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(2): 337-340.
[4]	董文敏,王明瑞,胡浩,王起,许克新,徐涛. Allium覆膜金属输尿管支架长期留置治疗输尿管-回肠吻合口狭窄的初期临床经验及随访结果[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(4): 637-641.
[5]	高健,胡立宝,陈尘,郅新,徐涛. 经皮肾镜去石术后出血的介入治疗[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(4): 667-671.
[6]	郑蒙蒙,丁光璞,朱伟杰,杨昆霖,樊书菠,关豹,李新飞,蔡宇坤,张进生,李学松,周利群. 术前三维影像重建在治疗肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(4): 705-710.
[7]	熊盛炜,王杰,朱伟杰,程嗣达,张雷,李学松,周利群. 二次肾盂成形术在复发性肾盂输尿管连接部梗阻中的研究进展[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(4): 794-798.
[8]	马凯,曲星珂,许清泉,熊六林,叶雄俊,安立哲,陈伟男,黄晓波. 肾移植术后移植肾输尿管膀胱吻合口狭窄的腔内治疗:13例报道[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(6): 1155-1158.
[9]	齐伟,李健男,赵静仁,邢海霞,潘洁. 角形切口设计和愈合方式与下颌阻生智齿拔除术后并发症[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(5): 949-953.
[10]	许庭珉,张晓威,张国喜,白文俊,李清,徐涛. 应用脱细胞异体真皮补片行阴茎增粗术的并发症及处理[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(4): 636-640.
[11]	梁晨,张维宇,胡浩,王起,方志伟,许克新. 膀胱扩大术两种不同术式的疗效及并发症比较[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(2): 293-297.
[12]	徐稼轩,王宏志,董军,陈小杰,杨勇,陈仁雄,王国栋. 食管癌术后急性肺损伤/急性呼吸窘迫综合征的危险因素分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2018, 50(6): 1057-1062.
[13]	王博杰，郭超，李春晶，穆东亮. 围麻醉期过敏反应发生率及危险因素分析：一项2012—2017年回顾性调查[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2018, 50(1): 193-199.
[14]	李旭, 李奉龙, 鲁谊, 朱以明, 郭斯翊, 李屹钧, 姜春岩. 锁定钢板治疗非骨质疏松性复杂肱骨近端骨折的中期临床及影像学随访研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(5): 855-860.
[15]	于路平，徐涛. 经皮肾镜碎石术治疗儿童上尿路结石的进展、安全性和有效性的分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(4): 626-631.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed