期刊文献+

腹腔镜下两种手术路径行输尿管切开取石的临床疗效比较 被引量:4

Clinical effect of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy through two different surgery paths
暂未订购
导出
摘要 目的分析比较腹腔镜下经腹与经腹膜后行输尿管切开取石术的疗效。方法对我院2008年2月~2010年9月65例采用腹腔镜手术的输尿管结石患者随机分为经腹腔(31例)和经腹膜后(34例)两组,比较分析两种手术方式的治疗效果。结果 65例患者均成功取石;两组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后留置引流管时间、住院时间、术后7 d结石清除率、术后3个月结石清除率方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但经腹膜后组疗效相对更好;并发症方面仅经腹组出现1例皮下气肿、经腹膜后组出现2例皮下气肿,未经处理自行吸收,两组均未出现尿漏。结论经腹与经腹膜后腹腔镜下输尿管切开取石术创伤小、并发症少、安全有效,均有很高的结石清除率,腹腔镜手术可作为输尿管结石的首选术式。 Objective To compare the clinical effect of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy through two different surgery paths. Methods In the clinical study, from February 2008 to September 2010,65 patients treated by laparoscopic ureterolithotomy were divided randomly into abdominal cavity group (31 eases)and retroperitoneal group (34 cases), the clinical effect of two different surgery paths were compared. Results All patients completed the surgery successfully;the outcome of operation time.blood loss.drainage time.hospital stay,stone free rate of 7 d and 3 months after surgery of two groups had no significant difference(P all 〉 0.05) ,but the clinical effect of the retroperitoneal group was comparatively superior to that of abdominal cavity group;the abdominal cavity group had 1 subcutaneous emphysema while the other group had 2 cases,but they were absorbed without treatment, and all patients had no urinary leak. Conclusion Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy through abdomi- nal cavity path and retroperitoneal path are safe, high-performance,low-damage,the rate of adverse reaction is low and the stone free rate is high.Therefore,it is considered as the first choice of ureteral calculus treatment and worth popularizing.
作者 米登斌
出处 《中国现代医生》 2012年第26期155-156,158,共3页 China Modern Doctor
关键词 腹腔镜 输尿管结石 腹膜后 Laparoscope Ureteral calculus Retroperitoneal
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献26

共引文献55

同被引文献40

  • 1李建明,朱建,解吕中.后腹膜路径下腹腔镜输尿管上段切开取石术116例[J].微创泌尿外科杂志,2014,3(3):146-148. 被引量:5
  • 2杨江根,方烈奎,尹朝晖,黄东龙,肖克峰.经腹与经腹膜后腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术的比较[J].中国微创外科杂志,2006,6(11):883-885. 被引量:23
  • 3Elashry OM , Elgamasy AK, Sabaa MA, et al. Ureteroscopic manage-ment of lower ureteric calculi : a 15 - year single - centre experience[J]. BJU Int, 2008,102(8) : 1010 -1017.
  • 4Clarke M , Horton R. Bringing it all together; Lancet - Cochrane col-laborate on systematic reviews[ J]. Lancet, 2001, 357(9270) : 1728.
  • 5Stroup DF, Berlin JA , Morton SC , et al. Meta - analysis of observa-tional studies in epidemiology : a proposal for reporting [ J ]. JAMA ,2000,283(15) : 2008 -2012.
  • 6Dersimonian R , Laird N. Meta - analysis in clinical trials [ J ] . Con-trol Clin Trials, 1986, 7(3) : 177-188.
  • 7Singh V , Sinha RJ, Gupta DK , et al. Transperitoneal versus retroper-itoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: a prospective randomized com-parison study [J]. J Urol, 2013 , 189 (3 ) : 940 - 945.
  • 8Bove P , Micali S , Miano R , et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy : acomparison between the transperitoneal and the retroperitoneal ap-proach during the learning curve [ J ]. J Endourol, 2009,23 ( 6 ):953 -957.
  • 9Wisoot K, Sahachart K, Kittinut K,et al. Extraperitoneal versustransperitoneal approach of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in selectedpatients[J]. Med Assoc Thai, 2010,93(7) : 794 -798.
  • 10Raboy A, Ferzli GS , Ioffreda R, et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy[J]. Urology, 1992, 39(3):223 -225.

引证文献4

二级引证文献10

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部