ĐÁNH GIÁ KẾT QUẢ ĐIỀU TRỊ SỎI THẬN ≤ 3 CM BẰNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP TÁN SỎI THẬN QUA DA ĐƯỜNG HẦM SIÊU NHỎ

Khẩn Nguyễn Văn; Cường Nguyễn Việt; Việt  Nguyễn Phú; Nghĩa Nguyễn Trương Trọng; Linh Trần Thị; Đức Phạm Minh; Hiên Hoàng Vũ; Loan Trương Thị

doi:10.59354/ydth175.2025.381

Authors

Khẩn Nguyễn Văn Bệnh viện Quân y 175
Cường Nguyễn Việt Bệnh viện Quân y 175
Việt Nguyễn Phú Học viện Quân y
Nghĩa Nguyễn Trương Trọng Bệnh viện Quân y 175
Linh Trần Thị Bệnh viện Quân y 175
Đức Phạm Minh Bệnh viện Quân y 175
Hiên Hoàng Vũ Bệnh viện Quân y 175
Loan Trương Thị Bệnh viện Quân y 175

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59354/ydth175.2025.381

Keywords:

Ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, nephrolithiasis, miniasturization

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Ultra-mini[1]percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) for the treatment of renal stone up to 3 cm.

Subjects and Methods: A prospective descriptive study was conducted involving 79 patients who underwent UMP at Urology Department, Military Hospital 175 from December 2023 to October 2024. All procedures utilized 7 Fr nephroscope and 12 Fr Amplatz sheath, guide by both flouroscopy and ultrasound. Stones were disintegrated with holmium laser. Outcomes assessed included the stone-free rate (SFR), complication rate and mean postoperative stay.

Results: Among the participants, there were 50 males (63,3%) and 29 females (36,7%) with a mean age of 50,2±10,7 years (range from 26 to75 year old). Renal pelvis stone 12(15,2%), pelvis and calyx stones 42(53%), renal calyx stones 1(1,2%), proximal ureteral stones 11(13,9%). Right renal stones 32(40,5%), left renal stones 47(59,5%). Hydronephrosis volume on preoperative MSCT revealed: level I 24(30,3%), level II 22(27,9%), level III 5(6,3%). The mean preoperative stone size 22,42±6,33mm. Mean operative time 50,9±16 mins. The mean postoperative hospital stay 2,28±1,5 days. Postoperative SFR 89,9%, SFR at 3 months follow-up 96,15%, tubeless rate 74,7%, complication rate 6,3%.

Conclusion: The implementation of UPM for the treatment of renal stones up to 3 cm is demonstrated to be safe and effective, characterized by high stone-free rate, lower complication rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

References

1. Igor Sorokin, Charalampos Mamoulakis, Katsuhito Miyazawa and et als (2017), Epidemiology of stone disease across the world, World Journal of Urology. 35(9), pp. 1301-1320.

2. Jacob Lang, Aparna Narendrula, Ahmed El-Zawahry and et als (2022), Global Trends in Incidence and Burden of Urolithiasis from 1990 to 2019: An Analysis of Global Burden of Disease Study Data, European Urology Open Science. 35, pp. 37-46.

3. R. Kukreja, M. Desai, S. Patel and et als (2004), Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study, J Endourol. 18(8), pp. 715-22.

4. N. Ferakis &M. Stavropoulos (2015), Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones: Lessons learned from a review of the literature, Urol Ann. 7(2), pp. 141-8.

5. EAU-Guidelines-On-Urolithiasis-2023.

6. Silvia Proietti, Guido Giusti, Mahesh Desai and et als (2017), A Critical Review of Miniaturised Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Is Smaller Better?, European Urology Focus. 3(1), pp. 56-61.

7. Faby Salim, U. S. Ramjith &C. Shanavas (2024), A Prospective Study to Assess the Safety, Effectiveness and Outcome of Ultra-mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Surgery in the Management of Renal Stone Disease, Kerala Surgical Journal. 30(1).

8. P. Jones, G. Bennett, O. M. Aboumarzouk and et als (2017), Role of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Techniques-Micro and Ultra-Mini PCNL (< 15F) in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review, J Endourol. 31(9), pp. 816-824

9. M. S. Agrawal, K. Agarwal, T. Jindal and et als (2016), Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A minimally-invasive option for percutaneous stone removal, Indian J Urol. 32(2), pp. 132-6.

10. J. Desai &R. Solanki (2013), Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium, BJU Int. 112(7), pp. 1046-9.

11. A. Demirbas, B. Resorlu, M. M. Sunay and et als (2016), Which Should be Preferred for Moderate-Size Kidney Stones? Ultramini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy or Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery?, J Endourol. 30(12), pp. 1285-1289.

12. G. R. Sharma, P. N. Maheshwari, A. G. Sharma and et als (2015), Fluoroscopy guided percutaneous renal access in prone position, World J Clin Cases. 3(3), pp. 245-64.

13. Huseyin Tugrul Celik, Cemal Taşdemir &Ramazan Altıntaş (2015), An Overview of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, EMJ Urology.

14. Trần Hoài Nam (2023), Kết quả tán sỏi thận qua da đường hầm nhỏ dưới hướng dẫn siêu âm điều trị sỏi thận tại bệnh viện 19-8, Bộ Công An, Tạp Chí Y Học Việt Nam. 533(2), pp. 229-233.

15. Lê Huy Ngọc (2024), Đánh giá kết quả điều trị sỏi thận bằng phương pháp tán sỏi qua da đường hầm nhỏ tại bệnh viện Quân y 103, VIETNAM MEDICAL JOURNAL. 1, pp. 88-90.

16. Phạm Huy Vũ (2014), Đánh giá kết quả điều trị sỏi thận bằng phương pháp tán sỏi qua da đường hầm siêu nhỏ (ULTRAMINIPERC), Y HỌC TP.HỒ CHÍ MINH. 22(1), pp. 175-179.

17. Q. Chen, Y. Cao, L. Xia and et als (2021), The retrospective experience of day-surgery semi tubeless ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Transl Androl Urol. 10(2), pp. 654-661.

18. S. N. Datta, R. S. Chalokia, K. W. Wing and et als (2022), Ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 10-30 mm calculi: a randomized controlled trial, Urolithiasis. 50(3), pp. 361-367