Effect of percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteral stent drainage in the treatment of infectious hydronephrosis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1008-6706.2020.08.014
- VernacularTitle:经皮肾造瘘和输尿管支架引流治疗感染性肾积水的效果观察
- Author:
Bin CHEN
1
;
Linfeng LU
;
Yifang CAO
;
Xueping WANG
;
Weihua SHEN
Author Information
1. 浙江省，嘉兴市第一医院泌尿外科 314000
- From:
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
2020;27(8):954-957
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the therapeutic effects of percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteral stent drainage in the treatment of infectious hydronephrosis.Methods:From June 2017 to June 2018, 92 patients with infectious hydronephrosis in the First Hospital of Jiaxing were selected.The patients' hospital number was entered into the computer and the patients were divided into group A(percutaneous nephrolithotomy and drainage treatment, 46 cases) and group B(transurethral ureteral stent drainage treatment, 46 cases) by lottery.The treatment effect and safety were compared between the two groups.Results:There were no statistically significant differences in age, male/female, duration of disease, site of renal disease, primary disease, and underlying disease between the two groups(all P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the success rate of disposable catheter placement between group A and group B(97.73% vs.100.00%, χ 2=0.126, P>0.05). The efficacy of group A was significantly higher than that of group B(97.73% vs.81.40%, χ 2=4.617, P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence rates of bleeding, infection, drainage tube abscess and puncture abscess between the two groups(all P>0.05). Conclusion:Percutaneous nephrostomy in the treatment of infectious hydronephrosis is more effective than ureteral stent drainage.Both of two methods have high safety of treatment.Clinical treatment should be based on the specific circumstances of the patients to obtain a significant clinical effect.
