Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 14  No. 02 ( 2024 ), Article ID: 80493 , 6 pages
10.12677/ACM.2024.142349

不同尺寸双J管在输尿管软镜术后对净石率和双J管综合征的影响

麦麦提图尔荪·库尔班1,阿不力孜·司马义1,2*

1新疆医科大学研究生院,新疆 乌鲁木齐

2新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院泌尿中心,新疆 乌鲁木齐

收稿日期:2024年1月5日;录用日期:2024年1月31日;发布日期:2024年2月5日

摘要

双J管已经成为临床治疗泌尿系统疾病常用的置入性器械之一,其基本原理为建立人工通道,避开尿路的梗阻部位,缓解输尿管阻塞;同时,对于输尿管镜及输尿管软镜碎石术后患者,置入双J管可促进结石碎片的排出,提高净石率,从而起保护肾功能的作用。可在双J管的应用过程中,与支架留置相关的不良反应也为患者带来了不少的痛苦。因此可见,双J管的置入和支架相关症状之间的相关性是显而易见的。先前关于双J管的相关研究主要集中在支架设计、材料、位置和药物管理方面,但支架尺寸相关研究较少。目前,支架尺寸对双J管相关并发症和净石率的影响尚不清楚。有鉴于此,以比较不同尺寸的双J管引起的支架相关症状及对尿路结石的疗效作一综述。

关键词

双J管,输尿管镜,输尿管软镜,净石率

The Effect of Different Size of Double J Tubes on Stone Free Rate and Double J Tube Syndrome after Flexible Ureteroscopy Surgery

Maimaitituersun·Kuerban1, Abulizi·Simayi1,2*

1Graduate School of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi Xinjiang

2Urinary Center, People’s Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi Xinjiang

Received: Jan. 5th, 2024; accepted: Jan. 31st, 2024; published: Feb. 5th, 2024

ABSTRACT

Double J tube has become one of the commonly used implantable instruments in clinical treatment of urinary diseases. Its basic principle is to establish artificial channels to avoid the obstruction of urinary tract and relieve ureteral obstruction. At the same time, for patients after ureteroscopic and flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy, the placement of double J tube can promote the excretion of stone fragments, improve the stone free rate, and thus protect renal function. But in the application of double J tube, the adverse reactions related to stent retention also brought a lot of pain to patients. Therefore, the correlation between double J tube implantation and stent-related symptoms is obvious. Previous studies on double J tubes are mainly focused on stent design, material, location and drug management, but there are few studies on stent size. At present, the effect of stent size on double J tube related complications and stone free rate is not clear. In view of this, the stent-related symptoms caused by double J tubes of different sizes and the curative effect on urinary calculi were reviewed.

Keywords:Double J Tube, Ureteroscopic, Flexible Ureteroscopic, Stone Free Rate

Copyright © 2024 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 关于双J管的介绍

双J管最早在1949年由赫德曼提出,由聚乙烯制成,顺行置入至尿道外口。Gibbon将支架膀胱端改为球形,防止支架近端移位。早在20世纪70年代由Thomas和Roy Finney设计研发的单“J”型和双“J”型支架奠定了现阶段常用双J管的结构基础 [1] 。

自20世纪80年代以来,输尿管镜碎石术(URSL)已越来越多地用于治疗输尿管和肾结石。随着内镜在泌尿外科手术的广泛使用,在泌尿外科手术中双J管放置也随之增加。双J管的作用是促进术后残余结石排出,防止残余结石碎片、水肿和血肿对肾脏的阻塞,避免尿液外渗并缓解疼痛 [2] 。常用支架直径在4.7~8.5 Fr之间,长度在22~30 cm之间,也有其他多长度支架。

2. 双J管置入后并发症

支架相关并发症的出现可能与支架直径、支架长度、支架位置、支架材料以及通过支架的膀胱返流等因素有关 [2] 。短期双J管置入术可减少体内碎石术后的并发症 [3] 。支架可以促进残留结石碎片和凝块的通过,能降低狭窄形成的风险,并可以预防输尿管水肿引起的输尿管梗阻和肾绞痛。但是,在置入双J管后,患者会面临支架相关症状,比如下尿路症状、腰背部疼痛、生活质量下降、工作表现不佳、血尿和性功能障碍等问题。

输尿管留置双J管对患者造成一定的痛苦和不适,留置前详细向患者讲明情况,同时尽量减少不必要的双J管留置和尽可能早拔除双J管,适当应用药物,比如α1受体阻滞剂(盐酸坦索罗辛缓释胶囊、盐酸坦洛辛胶囊、盐酸特拉唑嗪、多沙唑嗪)、中成药(银花泌炎灵、宁泌泰)、中药方剂和传统针灸治疗等,可减少留置双J管对患者生活质量的影响。双J管广泛应用于上尿路的各种手术中,但也容易发生相关并发症,如膀胱过度活动症(OAB)、下尿路刺激症状、尿路感染、血尿、腰腹部疼痛、输尿管附壁结石形成等。研究表明约80%患者因为输尿管留置双J管显著影响了生活质量 [4] 。

输尿管镜及输尿管软镜碎石术后置入双J管是一种常见且广泛接受的手术。在涉及出血、输尿管创伤或大量残余结石的复杂输尿管镜碎石术中,建议使用双J管。对于是否应该在简单的输尿管镜取石术后是否常规放置双J管,目前还没有达成一致 [5] 。因为放置双J管后会产生置入后并发症,引起的不良反应影响患者的生活质量。尽管存在这一争议,但大多数泌尿外科医生通常会选择置入双J管,这是因为他们认为置入支架对于缓解疼痛、维持肾功能和处理结石是有积极影响的 [5] 。

双J管的使用产生的一些副作用,使其使用复杂化,尤其是在长期使用时。这些问题可能会对治疗结果、患者的生活质量和医疗保健相关成本产生重大影响。因此,能够减少支架相关症状被认为是一大优势。几项研究分析了可能与双J管症状相关的各种因素,包括支架的设计、材料、直径、长度和置入的位置等。尽管没有一个完美的、完全没有并发症的支架,但结合良好的材料、设计和调整其他相关因素将会有一个比较理想的支架 [6] 。

3. 输尿管支架症状问卷(ureteral stent symptoms questionnaire, USSQ)的出现

以前国内常用国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、生活质量评分(QOL)和视觉疼痛评分(VAS)等工具评价支架相关症状,无统一评价标准。Joshi等人于2003年发表的USSQ在欧美国家广泛应用。Joshi等人 [7] 建议使用双J管症状问卷(ureteral stent symptoms questionnaire, USSQ)来评估双J管相关症状的程度。该问卷已被许多国家接受并采用,以规范双J管相关症状。这份自行管理的问卷包括六个方面的问题,涉及泌尿系统症状、身体疼痛、总体健康、工作表现、性问题和其他问题。USSQ中的排尿症状评分包括尿频、排尿次数、尿失禁、尿痛、血尿、满意度等11项问题,基本包括了IPSS和QOL的问题;躯体疼痛评分包括VAS内容,并增加了疼痛对活动、睡眠、排尿等影响的评分,内容更全面;而一般健康情况、工作情况、性功能及附加问题对患者的生活质量影响有更全面的评价。通过与健康人群对比可以更直观地发现输尿管留置双J管后出现的相关症状对患者在排尿、躯体疼痛、工作和生活中的影响程度。问卷总分越高,双J管相关症状越严重。

4. 关于双J管尺寸选择的研究

目前在支架尺寸的选择上依然存在偏见。理想的双J管应该表现出最佳的通畅性,并且患者应该有良好的耐受性。减少支架相关症状可以提高患者的整体生活质量。与直径较大的支架相比,直径相对较小的支架的双J管症状问卷评分和泌尿系统症状发生率总体较低。所以建议使用直径较小的双J管,以减少双J管相关症状,而不同直径的双J管的移位、疼痛、止痛剂的使用和结石排净率无显著差异 [6] 。

双J管是一种保持尿液引流通畅的微创替代方案,在缓解尿石症、恶性肿瘤、妊娠、狭窄、创伤和任何梗阻性肾病引起的尿路梗阻方面发挥着至关重要的作用。绝大多数支架是放置后1~2周由泌尿科医生在门诊或者在手术室取出的;患有慢性病而留置支架的患者需要每隔3~6个月更换支架 [8] 。长时间留置双J管,可能在支架表面形成结垢,一些支架如果放置时间过长,甚至会被尿液腐蚀至断离或者附着在尿道而难以取出,从而导致肾脏不必要的损伤风险。所以根据患者输尿管解剖结构的差异,使用较短的支架和直径较小的支架可以防止结垢 [9] 。Wu等人 [10] 进行了一项系统的综述和荟萃分析,通过输尿管相关症状问卷(USSQ)评估双J管直径对尿路症状的影响。通过比较4.7~5 Fr和6 Fr直径支架的支架相关症状问评分,结果发现直径较小的支架有更好的结果,支架直径越大,疼痛指数评分越高。但是,相比之下,它们比直径大的支架更有可能发生迁移。尽管看起来直径较小的支架可能更容易发生术后移位,相关研究表明支架直径和支架移位发生率之间没有统计学意义的相关性 [11] 。通过排除支架位置的差异,研究了双J管直径对尿路症状的影响,研究表明,双J管直径越大,尿路症状越严重。所以,建议放置直径较小的双J管,以减少与双J管相关的症状 [12] 。但是值得考虑的是双J管的位置也是引起与支架相关症状的一个重要因素。当双J管穿过膀胱中线会刺激膀胱粘膜而导致严重的并发症。多因素分析显示,在性别、年龄、BMI、支架置入时间、支架长度、结石位置和结石大小等所有因素中,支架直径与总IPSS或OABSS的相关性最强。以前没有研究表明支架直径与支架置入引起的尿路不适症状有显著关系。研究表明,直径较大的双J管与更严重的尿路症状之间存在显着关联。

Giannarini等人使用USSQ评估了84名留置双J管的患者(包括URSL术后患者)的支架相关症状,并在多因素分析中报告了支架直径与USSQ相关 [13] 。因为较小的支架比较大的支架柔软,支架更容易弯曲,支架尺寸越小,远端卷曲直径越小,膀胱粘膜与支架表面接触越少。因此,直径较小的支架可能会减少与支架相关的膀胱刺激症状 [14] 。Vogt [15] 和Nestler等人 [16] 的研究表明,支架直径对整体输尿管扩张几乎没有影响,不同直径的双J管预计会有类似的输尿管扩张效果。此外,Kinn等人 [17] 的论文评估了置入双J管的患者的血流动力学,发现支架周围的尿路引流的尿液是流经支架的尿液的3~4倍。他们假设,较小的支架和输尿管壁之间有更大的空间,作为一个有功能的输尿管管腔,因此减轻了相关症状。人们习惯性认为,与直径较小的管道相比,直径较大的管道可以更好地排出积聚在肾脏收集系统中的脓液,实际上在肾脏测得的压力下降速率和最终压力不受支架直径的影响。不同直径支架在30 S内达到通畅水平,在90~120 S范围内达到终末压力,120 min后肾脏内有少量脓液残留。因此可以得出不同直径的支架都能以同样的效果引流充满肾脏的脓液 [18] 。

5. 关于双J管疗效的研究

许多研究调查了双J管在输尿管镜及输尿管软镜术前术后的用途,但很少有人分析它对净石率的影响 [19] 。结石排净率(SFR)是比较结石治疗效果的关键参数 [20] 。SFR的定义有严格的标准。认为“无结石”是指CT扫描或X线平片结合超声检查完全没有结石碎片。6个月后出现需要额外治疗的大块残留结石或未排出的小块残留碎石被认为是碎石失败 [21] 。相关研究认为,常规支架置入术可促进粘膜损伤愈合、结石碎片排出,并可减少输尿管狭窄等晚期并发症的发生率。但是支架置入后出现的并发症及支架后期必须取出,这会给患者带来痛苦和经济损失 [22] 。一次支架置入后二次输尿管镜检查的方案与德国的指南是一致的,被认为可以降低URS及RIRS后并发症发生率,同时增加结石排净率 [23] 。

在治疗尿石症之前,大量患者因肾绞痛或尿路败血症而需要双J管置入术。在这种情况下置入双J管已被证明对缓解肾绞痛引起的疼痛和治疗梗阻肾的脓毒症是有效的 [21] 。对于难治性肾绞痛、肾盂肾炎和输尿管狭窄的患者,进行术前双J管置入术 [24] 。如果满足以下条件之一,则在术后放置双J管:存在残余结石,可能再次手术,手术时间 > 60 min,存在输尿管壁损伤,以及孤立肾 [25] 。相关研究结果显示,与未放置支架的患者相比,术前放置支架的患者输尿管近端结石(输尿管中段/近端和肾盂)的排净率更高,并发症更少。虽然留置支架会给患者带来支架相关并发症,但是通过支架置入,可以避免结石治疗术后石街的形成并且可以提高净石率 [26] [27] 。相关研究发现,术前留置双J管可以缩短手术时间,提高术后第1天结石排净率 [28] [29] [30] 。放置双J管虽然可以扩张输尿管,但也可能导致尿路刺激症、血尿、尿路感染、输尿管狭窄等并发症 [29] [31] 。此外,术前留置双J管延长了术前住院时间,增加了医疗费用 [32] 。Netsch等人比较了URS及RIRS后置入双J管和未置入双J管的对照组人群的结果,研究发现双J管对输尿管上端结石的治疗有相当大的影响,置入支架的患者净石率显著高于未置入支架的患者(95.1%比86.7%,p = 0.013),并发症发生率相似(约10%) [21] [26] [33] 。

因此,有学者认为,术前置入双J管可以提前扩张输尿管,提高结石清除率,减少并发症。相反,也有学者指出,术前留置双J管并不能提高结石清除率,反而增加了医疗费用和整体并发症。所以,手术前后是否应该置入双J管,如果置入的话,置入何种尺寸的支架管,还没有达成共识。

文章引用

麦麦提图尔荪·库尔班,阿不力孜·司马义. 不同尺寸双J管在输尿管软镜术后对净石率和双J管综合征的影响
The Effect of Different Size of Double J Tubes on Stone Free Rate and Double J Tube Syndrome after Flexible Ureteroscopy Surgery[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(02): 2490-2495. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2024.142349

参考文献

  1. 1. 张琪, 陈杨, 卓栋. 输尿管支架的研究进展及临床应用前景[J]. 国际泌尿系统杂志, 2021, 41(4): 740-743.

  2. 2. Cubuk, A., Yanaral, F., Ozgor, F., et al. (2018) Comparison of 4.8 Fr and 6 Fr Ureteral Stents on Stent Related Symptoms Following Ureterorenoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 34, 695-699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2018.07.001

  3. 3. Wu, G., Sun, F., Sun, K., et al. (2021) Impact of Differential Ureteral Stent Diameters on Clinical Outcomes after Ureteroscopy Intracorporeal Lithotrip-sy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Urology, 28, 992-999. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14631

  4. 4. 祝昌明, 冯小迪, 陈长宜, 等. 输尿管留置双J管患者生活质量调查及输尿管支架症状评分表的应用[J]. 国际泌尿系统杂志, 2022, 42(2): 272-274.

  5. 5. Reddy, S.J., Reddy, B.S., Chaw-la, A., et al. (2022) Outcomes and Complications from a Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Conventional Stent Placement versus No Stent Placement after Ureteroscopy for Distal Ureteric Calculus < 1 cm. Journal of Clinical Medi-cine, 11, Article No. 7023. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237023

  6. 6. Diatmika, A., Djojodimedjo, T., Kloping, Y.P., et al. (2022) Comparison of Ureteral Stent Diameters on Ureteral Stent-Related Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Turkish Journal of Urology, 48, 30-40. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2022.21255

  7. 7. Joshi, H.B., Newns, N., Stainthorpe, A., et al. (2003) Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Quality of Life Measure. Journal of Urolo-gy, 169, 1060-1064. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000049198.53424.1d

  8. 8. Ramachandra, M., Mosayyebi, A., Carugo, D., et al. (2020) Strategies to Improve Patient Outcomes and QOL: Current Complications of the Design and Placements of Ure-teric Stents. Research and Reports in Urology, 12, 303-314. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S233981

  9. 9. Lopes, N.A. (2019) Forgotten Double-J Ureteral Stent. International Brazilian Journal of Urology, 45, 1087-1089. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.06.02

  10. 10. Taguchi, K. (2021) Editorial Comment to Impact of Dif-ferential Ureteral Stent Diameters on Clinical Outcomes after Ureteroscopy Intracorporeal Lithotripsy: A Systematic Re-view and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Urology, 28, 1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14653

  11. 11. Ehsanullah, S.A., Bruce, A., Juman, C., et al. (2022) Stent Diameter and Stent-Related Symptoms, Does Size Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urology Annals, 14, 295-302.

  12. 12. Taguchi, M., Yoshida, K., Sugi, M., et al. (2019) Effect of Ureteral Stent Diameter on Ureteral Stent-Related Symptoms. Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, 11, 195-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/luts.12259

  13. 13. Giannarini, G., Keeley, F.J., Valent, F., et al. (2011) Predictors of Morbid-ity in Patients with Indwelling Ureteric Stents: Results of a Prospective Study Using the Validated Ureteric Stent Symp-toms Questionnaire. BJU International, 107, 648-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09482.x

  14. 14. Kim, B.S., Choi, J.Y. and Jung, W. (2020) Does a Ureteral Stent with a Smaller Diameter Reduce Stent-Related Bladder Irrita-tion? A Single-Blind, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study. Journal of Endourology, 34, 368-372. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0482

  15. 15. Vogt, B., Desfemmes, F.N., Desgrippes, A., et al. (2016) MiniJFil®: A New Safe and Effective Stent for Well-Tolerated Repeated Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy or Ureteroscopy for Medium-to-Large Kidney Stones? Nephro-Urology Monthly, 8, e40788. https://doi.org/10.5812/numonthly.40788

  16. 16. Nestler, S., Witte, B., Schilchegger, L., et al. (2020) Size Does Mat-ter: Ureteral Stents with a Smaller Diameter Show Advantages Regarding Urinary Symptoms, Pain Levels and General Health. World Journal of Urology, 38, 1059-1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02829-0

  17. 17. Kinn, A.C. and Lykkeskov-Andersen, H. (2002) Impact on Ure-teral Peristalsis in a Stented Ureter. An Experimental Study in the Pig. Urological Research, 30, 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-002-0258-1

  18. 18. Modai, J., Shilo, Y., Leibovici, D., et al. (2022) Drainage of In-fected Kidneys with Ureteral Stents: Does Size Matter? World Journal of Urology, 40, 2041-2046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04070-8

  19. 19. Hubert, K.C. and Palmer, J.S. (2005) Passive Dilation by Ure-teral Stenting before Ureteroscopy: Eliminating the Need for Active Dilation. Journal of Urology, 174, 1079-1080. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000169130.80049.9c

  20. 20. Kokov, D., Manka, L., Beck, A., et al. (2019) Only Size Matters in Stone Patients: Computed Tomography Controlled Stone-Free Rates after Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urologia Internationalis, 103, 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1159/000497442

  21. 21. Dessyn, J.F., Balssa, L., Chabannes, E., et al. (2016) Flexible Urete-rorenoscopy for Renal and Proximal Ureteral Stone in Patients with Previous Ureteral Stenting: Impact on Stone-Free Rate and Morbidity. Journal of Endourology, 30, 1084-1088. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0045

  22. 22. Bach, P., Reicherz, A., Teichman, J., et al. (2018) Short-Term External Ureter Stenting Shows Significant Benefit in Comparison to Routine Double-J Stent Placement after Ureterorenoscopic Stone Extraction: A Prospective Randomized Trial—The Fast Track Stent Study (FaST). International Journal of Urology, 25, 717-722. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13711

  23. 23. Turk, C., Petrik, A., Sarica, K., et al. (2016) EAU Guidelines on Interven-tional Treatment for Urolithiasis. European Urology, 69, 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041

  24. 24. Polat, S., Danacioglu, Y.O., Soytas, M., et al. (2021) External Validation of the T.O.HO. Score and Derivation of the Modified T.O.HO. Score for Predicting Stone-Free Status after Flexible Ureteroscopy in Ureteral and Renal Stones. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 75, e14653. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14653

  25. 25. Tabei, T., Ito, H., Kobayashi, K., et al. (2018) Comparison of Outcomes between Two Methods to Extract Stone Fragments during Flexible Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy. BioMed Research Interna-tional, 2018, Article ID: 4526721. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4526721

  26. 26. Lumma, P.P., Schneider, P., Strauss, A., et al. (2013) Impact of Ureter-al Stenting Prior to Ureterorenoscopy on Stone- Free Rates and Complications. World Journal of Urology, 31, 855-859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0789-6

  27. 27. Wagenius, M., Oddason, K., Utter, M., et al. (2022) Factors In-fluencing Stone-Free Rate of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL); a Cohort Study. Scandinavian Journal of Urology, 56, 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2055137

  28. 28. Chu, L., Farris, C.A., Corcoran, A.T., et al. (2011) Preoper-ative Stent Placement Decreases Cost of Ureteroscopy. Urology, 78, 309-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.03.055

  29. 29. Bai, P.D., Wang, T., Huang, H.C., et al. (2021) Effect of Pre-operative Double-J Ureteral Stenting before Flexible Ureterorenoscopy on Stone-Free Rates and Complications. Current Medical Science, 41, 140-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-021-2328-z

  30. 30. Cetti, R.J., Biers, S. and Keoghane, S.R. (2011) The Difficult Ureter: What Is the Incidence of Pre-Stenting? The Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 93, 31-33. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588411X12851639106990

  31. 31. Mogilevkin, Y., Sofer, M., Margel, D., et al. (2014) Predicting an Effective Ureteral Access Sheath Insertion: A Bicenter Prospective Study. Journal of Endourology, 28, 1414-1417. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0215

  32. 32. Shields, J.M., Bird, V.G., Graves, R., et al. (2009) Impact of Preoperative Ureteral Stenting on Outcome of Ureteroscopic Treatment for Urinary Lithiasis. Journal of Urology, 182, 2768-2774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.043

  33. 33. Netsch, C., Knipper, S., Bach, T., et al. (2012) Impact of Preoperative Ureteral Stenting on Stone-Free Rates of Ureteroscopy for Nephroureterolithiasis: A Matched-Paired Analysis of 286 Patients. Urology, 80, 1214-1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.064

  34. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单