内外引流肾盂减压治疗急诊输尿管结石梗阻性尿脓毒血症的效果比较

摘要
图/表
参考文献(18)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (0 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的比较经皮肾穿刺造瘘手术（PCN）外引流肾盂减压与经尿道输尿管内支架管置入手术（US）内引流肾盂减压治疗急诊输尿管结石梗阻性尿脓毒血症的效果。方法选取2018年3月至2021年3月高州市人民医院收治的102 例急诊输尿管结石梗阻合并尿脓毒血症患者作为研究对象，采用简单随机化法分为外引流组（52 例）与内引流组（50 例）。外引流组采用PCN 术，内引流组采用US 术。比较两组患者的肾盂减压成功率、感染控制情况、手术并发症、术后生活质量。结果两组患者的肾盂减压成功率、体温恢复正常时间、血白细胞计数（WBC）恢复正常时间、C 反应蛋白恢复正常时间、降钙素原（PCT）恢复正常时间、术后住院天数比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。两组患者的肾盂输尿管支架穿孔、肾出血发生率比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。内引流组的术后腰痛、睡眠障碍发生率低于外引流组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。内引流组的术后2 h 感染进展率高于外引流组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论两种肾盂减压方式均能有效控制输尿管结石梗阻性尿脓毒血症，但PCN 术的安全性优于US 术，US 术后的舒适度及生活质量优于PCN 术。因此，在治疗方面需考虑患者的情况及医生的技术等因素，选择合适的肾盂减压方式

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	彭业平
	冯振华
	黄强
	梁浩
	陈先国

关键词 ：输尿管结石, 尿脓毒血症, 输尿管支架, 经皮肾穿刺造瘘

Abstract：Objective To compare the effect of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) external drainage and transurethral ureteral stenting (US) internal drainage in the treatment of emergency ureteral calculi obstructive urinary sepsis.Methods A total of 102 patients with emergency ureteral calculi obstruction complicated with urinary sepsis in Gaozhou People′s Hospital from March 2018 to March 2021 were selected as the research objects, and the patients were divided into the external drainage group (52 cases) and the internal drainage group (50 cases) according to the simple randomization method. The external drainage group was treated with PCN, and the internal drainage group was treated with US.The success rate of renal pelvis decompression, infection control, surgical complications and postoperative quality of life were compared between the two groups. Results There were no significant differences between the two groups in the success rate of renal pelvis decompression, the time of body temperature returning to normal, the time of white blood cell (WBC) returning to normal, the time of C-reactive protein returning to normal, the time of procalcitonin (PCT) returning to normal and the days of postoperative hospitalization (P＞0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of ureteropelvic stent perforation and renal hemorrhage between the two groups (P＞0.05). The incidence of postoperative back pain and sleep idsorders of the internal drainage group was lower than that in the external drainage group, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05). The infection progression rate at 2 h after operation in the internal drainage group was higher than that in the external drainage group, the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05). Conclusion Both methods of renal pelvis decompression can effectively control ureteral calculi obstruction complicated with urinary sepsis, but the safety of PCN is better than that of US, and the comfort and quality of life after US are better than those after PCN. Therefore, in terms of treatment, it is necessary to consider the situation of patients and the technology of doctors, and choose the appropriate way of renal pelvis decompression.

Key words： Ureteral calculi Urinary sepsis Ureteral stent Percutaneous nephrostomy

引用本文:

彭业平；冯振华；黄强；梁浩；陈先国 . 内外引流肾盂减压治疗急诊输尿管结石梗阻性尿脓毒血症的效果比较[J]. 中国当代医药, 2022, 29(16): 144-147.
PENG Yeping；FENG Zhenhua；HUANG Qiang；LIANG Hao；CHEN Xianguo. Effect comparison of internal and external drainage of renal pelvis decompression in the treatment of emergency ureteral calculi obstruction complicated with urinary sepsis. 中国当代医药, 2022, 29(16): 144-147.

链接本文:

https://www.dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/ 或 https://www.dangdaiyiyao.com/CN/Y2022/V29/I16/144

[1]	朱澄村，程帆，宁金卓.尿源性脓毒血症相关危险因素的研究进展[J].广西医学，2019，41（13）：1701-1703.
[2]	Liang X，Huang J，Xing M，et al.Risk factors and outcomes of urosepsis in patients with calculous pyonephrosis receiving surgical intervention：a single-center retrospective study[J].BMC Anesthesiol，2019，19（1）：61.
[3]	陈颖秀，王万辉，赵恩阳，等.泌尿系结石腔镜手术中肾盂内压力的研究进展[J].医学研究杂志，2020，49（2）：176-179.
[4]	潘东山，杨水法，洪德时，等.GPS 超声定位联合微创经皮肾镜碎石取石术与微创经皮肾镜碎石取石术治疗中等大小肾下盏结石疗效比较[J].中国现代医药杂志，2020，22（5）：20-23.
[5]	杨波，朱云海，周青.Ⅰ期微创经皮肾镜取石术与输尿管镜碎石取石术治疗上尿路结石疗效比较[J].临床军医杂志，2020，48（4）：431-432.
[6]	黎德林，陈值权，黄恒海，等.输尿管结石梗阻致尿源性脓毒血症的危险因素[J].中外医学研究，2020，18（2）：14-16.
[7]	Moss SR，Prescot HC.Current controversies in sepsis managment[J].Semin Respir Crit Care Med，2019，40（5）：594-603.
[8]	李雯雯，朱肖露，朴文花，等.478 例糖尿病合并尿路感染患者的病原菌分布及耐药性分析[J].宁夏医科大学学报，2020，42（4）：415-418.
[9]	Xie J，Wang H，Kang Y，et al.The epidemiology of sepsis in chinese ICUs：a national cross-sectional survey[J].Crit Care Med，2020，48（3）：e209-e218.
[10]	Kakinoki H，Tobu S，Kakinoki Y，et al.Risk factors for uroseptic shock in patients with urolithiasis-related acute pyelonephritis[J].Urol Int，2018，100（1）：37-42.
[12]	康家旗，杨永姣，刘莉，等.输尿管结石致尿脓毒血症患者发生严重脓毒症或脓毒性休克的危险因素分析[J].重庆医科大学学报，2018，43（4）：556-559.
[14]	曹金龙，李攀，杨欣，等.经输尿管镜碎石术后尿源性脓毒性休克的预后影响因素分析[J].国际泌尿系统杂志，2021，41（1）：44-48.
[16]	许东绍，苏满华.经皮肾镜体内碎石系统治疗肾结石疗效分析[J].中国临床医生杂志，2021，49（3）：332-334.
[17]	高健，胡立宝，陈尘，等.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.
[11]	Hsiao CY，Chen TH，Lee YC，et al.Urolithiasis is a risk factor for uroseptic shock and acute kidney injury in patients with urinary tract infection[J].Front Med（Lausanne），2019，6：288.
[13]	Wang Y，Zhong B，Yang X，et al.Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL，RPLU，and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones：a randomized controlled trial[J].BMC Urol，2017，17（1）：50.
[15]	Caraballo C，Jaimes F.Organ dysfunction in sepsis：an ominous trajectory from infection to death[J].Yale J Biol Med，2019，92（4）：629-640.
[18]	Zhu Z，Cui Y，Zeng F，et al.Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones[J].World J Urol，2019，37（5）：921-929.