Zhonghua yi xue za zhi · 2012
[Technique of thulium laser in managing bladder cuff in nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelium carcinoma].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pang Kun, Sun Xiao-Wen, Liu Shi-Bo, Li Wei-Guo, Shao Yi, Zhuo Jian, Wei Hai-Bin, Xia Shu-Jie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To explore the application of thulium laser (2 µm laser) in managing bladder cuff in nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelium carcinoma (UUT-UC).
METHODS: The medical records of 56 patients undergoing nephroureterectomy at our hospital were reviewed retrospectively. The operative indicators, oncologic outcomes and clinicopathologic data were compared among the groups of open surgery (Group A), electric coagulation (Group B) and thulium laser technique (Group C). Furthermore a model of burst pressure measurement was built to measure the different burst pressures of sealing distal ureter.
RESULTS: The follow-up results: when the indicators of operative duration, intraoperative blood loss volume, removal time of drainage tube, removal time of catheter and hospital stays were compared among three groups, Group A had no statistical differences with Group B/C in terms of removal time of drainage tube and removal time of catheter. But significant statistical differences existed in terms of operative duration, intraoperative blood loss volume and hospital stays ((232 ± 52) vs (148 ± 47) and (130 ± 49) min, (358 ± 81) vs (136 ± 74) and (145 ± 70) ml, (13 ± 3) vs (11 ± 4) and (10 ± 3) d, all P < 0.05). No statistical differences existed between Groups B and C in terms of all the above indicators. Burst pressure measurement results: no statistical differences existed between Group C and B ((116 ± 21) vs (139 ± 32) cm H2O, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: For the surgical treatment of UUT-UC, thulium laser technique has no difference in operation indicators and oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery. Besides, it has the advantages of improved spatial beam quality and more precise tissue incision.
METHODS: The medical records of 56 patients undergoing nephroureterectomy at our hospital were reviewed retrospectively. The operative indicators, oncologic outcomes and clinicopathologic data were compared among the groups of open surgery (Group A), electric coagulation (Group B) and thulium laser technique (Group C). Furthermore a model of burst pressure measurement was built to measure the different burst pressures of sealing distal ureter.
RESULTS: The follow-up results: when the indicators of operative duration, intraoperative blood loss volume, removal time of drainage tube, removal time of catheter and hospital stays were compared among three groups, Group A had no statistical differences with Group B/C in terms of removal time of drainage tube and removal time of catheter. But significant statistical differences existed in terms of operative duration, intraoperative blood loss volume and hospital stays ((232 ± 52) vs (148 ± 47) and (130 ± 49) min, (358 ± 81) vs (136 ± 74) and (145 ± 70) ml, (13 ± 3) vs (11 ± 4) and (10 ± 3) d, all P < 0.05). No statistical differences existed between Groups B and C in terms of all the above indicators. Burst pressure measurement results: no statistical differences existed between Group C and B ((116 ± 21) vs (139 ± 32) cm H2O, P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: For the surgical treatment of UUT-UC, thulium laser technique has no difference in operation indicators and oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery. Besides, it has the advantages of improved spatial beam quality and more precise tissue incision.