無(wú)管化經(jīng)皮腎鏡碎石取石術(shù)安全性與有效性的循證醫(yī)學(xué)研究
[Abstract]:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE BACKGROUND: With the development of society, the incidence of urinary calculi is on the rise. China is a country with high incidence of urinary calculi. PCNL has become the first choice for the treatment of renal calculi and upper ureteral calculi, and PCNL placement of renal fistula and ureteral stent was once a routine procedure. Doctor's concern. An operation method of tubeless PCNL has been proposed and proved to be safe and effective by a certain number of clinical practices. However, it has not yet been recognized that tubeless PCNL, evidence-based medicine evidence and large sample randomized controlled clinical trials are insufficient, especially under the tense doctor-patient relationship in China. Objective: To explore the safety and effectiveness of the clinical application of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and to guide the practice through a meta-analysis of the clinical comparative study between tubeless and traditional PCNL. CENTRAL and other databases and manually assisted searches of the Chinese Journal of Urology and the Journal of Modern Urology were conducted from 2006 to 2016. Literatures on the clinical comparison between non-tubular PCNL and traditional PCNL were screened strictly according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 13 literatures were obtained. The Jadad scoring method was used to study the literatures. After evaluating and analyzing the quality of the study, RevMan 5.3 software was used to collect the data of hospitalization time, operation time, stone clearance rate, postoperative hemoglobin decrease, postoperative blood transfusion, postoperative pain VAS score, postoperative analgesic drug demand, postoperative urinary extravasation, postoperative fever and postoperative recovery time of normal activity. Results: The sample size of 13 articles included 602 cases in the experimental group and 590 cases in the control group; hospitalization time: 10 articles were statistically analyzed. The results showed that the average hospitalization time of the experimental group was 1.45 days, 95% CI was - 1.45 [- 1.91, - 0.99], Z = 6.22 (P 0.00001); operation time: 10 articles. Statistical results showed that the average operative time of PCNL in the experimental group was 0.3 minutes shorter than that in the control group; 95% CI was - 0.30 [- 0.44, - 0.16], Z = 4.29 (P 0.0001). Stone clearance rate: 7 papers were reported, 95% CI was 1.07 [0.69, 1.66], Z = 0.30 (P = 0.76) showed no significant difference between the two groups. Postoperative blood transfusion: There was no significant difference in postoperative hemoglobin loss between the two groups. Postoperative blood transfusion: Nine literatures analyzed postoperative blood transfusion, 95% CI 0.69 [0.44,1.08], Z = 1.62 (P = 0.10) showed no statistical difference in postoperative blood transfusion between the two groups. VAS pain score, 95% CI was - 2.67 [- 4.38, - 0.97], indicating that the experimental group than the control group decreased by an average of 2.63; Z = 3.07 (P = 0.002). Postoperative analgesic drug requirements: 5 research data Meta analysis showed that 95% CI was - 0.97 [- 1.42, - 0.52], the experimental group compared with the control group using analgesic drugs significantly decreased, Z = 4.21 (P 0.0001). Surgical complications: postoperative urinary tract. There was no significant difference between the two groups (Z = 0.48 P = 0.63) and postoperative fever (Z = 1.96 P = 0.05). Conclusion: There is no significant difference in stone clearance rate, blood transfusion, postoperative urinary extravasation, postoperative fever and postoperative pain between PCNL and traditional PCNL, and it is a safe and effective surgical method.
【學(xué)位授予單位】:南昌大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】:碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】:2017
【分類號(hào)】:R699
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條
1 劉春林;劉寧;吳宗山;渠淵;;輸尿管鏡下氣壓彈道碎石治療導(dǎo)尿管結(jié)殼的效果觀察[J];中國(guó)綜合臨床;2014年02期
2 宋中建;謝留定;;無(wú)管化與留置腎造瘺管經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術(shù)治療上尿路結(jié)石的臨床療效對(duì)比[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)學(xué)創(chuàng)新;2013年35期
3 陳仕云;;無(wú)管化經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術(shù)與微造瘺經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術(shù)治療上尿路結(jié)石的臨床療效對(duì)比[J];當(dāng)代醫(yī)學(xué);2013年27期
4 陳景宇;黃銳;李富林;黃棟強(qiáng);岳巍巍;;完全無(wú)管化和不置腎造瘺管部分無(wú)管化經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術(shù)的對(duì)照研究[J];現(xiàn)代泌尿外科雜志;2012年03期
5 王家武;姜慶;樊曉棟;;無(wú)管化與標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術(shù)比較的薈萃分析[J];中華醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2011年22期
6 胡衛(wèi)星;曾凡雄;李克慶;蔡建良;;“無(wú)管化”經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術(shù)療效分析[J];中國(guó)誤診學(xué)雜志;2009年31期
7 劉建河;齊雋;陳建華;黃云騰;沈海波;虞永江;葉敏;陳方;;復(fù)雜腎結(jié)石經(jīng)皮腎鏡取石術(shù)后結(jié)石殘留的原因與處理[J];臨床泌尿外科雜志;2007年04期
,本文編號(hào):2194078
本文鏈接:http://sikaile.net/yixuelunwen/mjlw/2194078.html