BMC surgery · 2024
Experimental study of a new technique for minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: intelligent pressure-controlled minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Yang Zhongsheng, Song Leming, Huang Yongming, Chen Hua, Sun Ting
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To test the reliability and safety of a newly invented technique for minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy, intelligent pressure-controlled minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (IPC-MPCNL).
METHODS: Eighteen kidneys of nine female pigs were randomly divided into three groups. Those in Groups A and B underwent IPC-MPCNL through the new system composed of a pressure-measuring MPCNL suctioning sheath and an irrigation and suctioning platform with pressure feedback control. The infusion flow rate was 500 ml/min in Group A and 750 ml/min in Group B. Those in Group C underwent MPCNL at an infusion flow rate of 500 ml/min. The renal pelvic pressure (RPP) monitored by a ureteral catheter and that monitored by the pressure-measuring sheath in Groups A and B were compared. The RPP in Group C was monitored by a ureteral catheter.
RESULTS: The RPP measured by the pressure-measuring sheath and that measured by the ureteral catheter in Group A was - 5.59 ± 1.95 mmHg and 4.46 ± 2.08 mmHg, respectively. The RPP measured by the pressure-measuring sheath and that measured by the ureteral catheter in Group B was - 4.00 ± 2.01 mmHg and 5.92 ± 2.05 mmHg, respectively. Hence, the RPPs measured by the pressure-measuring sheath in Groups A and B were consistent with those measured by the ureteral catheter. The RPP in Group C was 27.75 ± 5.98 mmHg (large fluctuations).
CONCLUSIONS: IPC-MPCNL can be used to accurately monitor the RPP and maintain it within a preset safe range via suction. The new technique and the new system are safe and reliable.
METHODS: Eighteen kidneys of nine female pigs were randomly divided into three groups. Those in Groups A and B underwent IPC-MPCNL through the new system composed of a pressure-measuring MPCNL suctioning sheath and an irrigation and suctioning platform with pressure feedback control. The infusion flow rate was 500 ml/min in Group A and 750 ml/min in Group B. Those in Group C underwent MPCNL at an infusion flow rate of 500 ml/min. The renal pelvic pressure (RPP) monitored by a ureteral catheter and that monitored by the pressure-measuring sheath in Groups A and B were compared. The RPP in Group C was monitored by a ureteral catheter.
RESULTS: The RPP measured by the pressure-measuring sheath and that measured by the ureteral catheter in Group A was - 5.59 ± 1.95 mmHg and 4.46 ± 2.08 mmHg, respectively. The RPP measured by the pressure-measuring sheath and that measured by the ureteral catheter in Group B was - 4.00 ± 2.01 mmHg and 5.92 ± 2.05 mmHg, respectively. Hence, the RPPs measured by the pressure-measuring sheath in Groups A and B were consistent with those measured by the ureteral catheter. The RPP in Group C was 27.75 ± 5.98 mmHg (large fluctuations).
CONCLUSIONS: IPC-MPCNL can be used to accurately monitor the RPP and maintain it within a preset safe range via suction. The new technique and the new system are safe and reliable.