Авторы
Ханалиев Б.В., Иванов А.В.
ФГБУ «Национальный медико-хирургический Центр им. Н.И. Пирогова», Москва
Аннотация
Гибкая уретерореноскопия (УРС) является операцией выбора при лечении больных с нефролитиазом. В настоящее время данная методика успешно применяется при лечении пациентов с камнями не только менее 2 см, но и в некоторых случаях более 2 см, при любой локализации в почке с высокой частотой полного удаления камней, значительно сократив время пребывания в стационаре. Однако, несмотря на высокую технологичность и безопасность, гибкая УРС имеет свои возможные осложнения, которые рассмотрены в данном обзоре литературы.
Ключевые слова: гибкая УРС, классификация Clavien-Dindo, инфекционные осложнения, травматические осложнения.
Список литературы
1. Гаджиев Н.К., Горгоцкий И.А., Шкарупа А.Г др. Гибкая уретерореноскопия. Методические рекомендации. Санкт-Петербург: Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет Клиника высоких медицинских технологий им. Н. И. Пирогова, 2022.
2. Schoenthaler M. The Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS): a multicenter video-based evaluation of inter-rater reliability / Schoenthaler M., Buchholz N., Farin E. et al. World J Urol. 2014; 32(4): 1033-40. doi: 10.1007/s00345-013-1185-1.
3. Traxer O. Prospective Evaluation and Classification of Ureteral Wall Injuries Resulting from Insertion of a Ureteral Access Sheath During Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. The Journal of Urology. 2012; 189. doi:10.1016/ j.juro.2012.08.197.
4. Xu Y, Min Z, Wan SP, et al. Complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the modified Clavien grading system. Urolithiasis. 2018; 46(2): 197-202. doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-0961-6.
5. Whitehurst LA, Somani BK. Perirenal Hematoma After Ureteroscopy: A Systematic Review. J Endourol. 2017; 31: 438-445. doi: 10.1089/end. 2016.0832.
6. Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol; 2014; 28: 131-139. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0436.
7. Dybowski B, Bres-Niewada E, Rzeszutko M, et al. Risk factors for infectious complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery – a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Cent European J Urol. 2021; 74: 437-445. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2021.250.
8. Zhang H, Jiang T, Gao R, et al. Risk factors of infectious complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery: a retrospective clinical analysis. J Int Med Res. 2020; 48(9). doi: 10.1177/0300060520956833.
9. Bhojani N, Miller LE., Bhattacharyya S, et al. Risk Factors for Urosepsis After Ureteroscopy for Stone Disease: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. J Endourol. 2021; 35: 991-1000. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.1133.
10. Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J, et al. Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. J Urology. 2003; 61: 713-718. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02440-8.
11. Schwalb DM, Eshghi M, Davidian M, et al. Morphological and physiological changes in the urinary tract associated with ureteral dilation and ureteropyeloscopy: an experimental study. J Urol. 1993; 149: 1576-1585. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36456-x.
12. Jun HU, Frimodt-Møller PC, Osther PJ, Mortensen J. Pharmacological effect on pyeloureteric dynamics with a clinical perspective: a review of the literature. Urol Res. 2006; 34: 341-350. doi: 10.1007/s00240-006-0069-x.
13. Auge BK, Pietrow PK, Lallas CD, et al. Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation. J Endourol. 2004; 18: 33-36. doi: 10.1089/ 089277904322836631.
14. Monga M, Bodie J, Ercole B. Is there a role for small-diameter ureteral access sheaths? Impact on irrigant flow and intrapelvic pressures. Urology. 2004; 64: 439-441. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.04.060.
15. Sener TE, Cloutier J, Villa L, et al. Can We Provide Low Intrarenal Pressures with Good Irrigation Flow by Decreasing the Size of Ureteral Access Sheaths? J Endourol. 2016; 30: 49-55. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0387.
16. Ng YH, Somani BK, Dennison A, et al. Irrigant flow and intrarenal pressure during flexible ureteroscopy: the effect of different access sheaths, working channel instruments, and hydrostatic pressure. J Endourol. 2010; 24: 1915-1920. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0188.
17. Tokas T, Skolarikos A, Herrmann T, et al. Pressure matters 2: intrarenal pressure ranges during upper-tract endourological procedures. World J Urol. 2019; 37: 133-142. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2379-3.
18. Noureldin YA, Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P, et al. The Effect of Irrigation Power and Ureteral Access Sheath Diameter on the Maximal Intra-Pelvic Pressure During Ureteroscopy: In Vivo Experimental Study in a Live Anesthetized Pig. J Endourol. 2019; 33: 725-729. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0317.
19. Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2013; 189: 580-584. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.197.
20. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, et al. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater--is this the new frontier? J Urol. 2008; 179: 981-984. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.083.
21. Somani BK, Sun GY, Osther PJ, et al. Complications associated with ureterorenoscopy (URS) related to treatment of urolithiasis: the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society URS Global study. World J Urol. 2017; 35: 675-681. doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1909-0.
22. Aldoukhi AH, Ghani KR, Hall TL, et al. Thermal Response to High-Power Holmium Laser Lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2017; 31: 1308-1312. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0679.
23. Малхасян В.А. Осложнения гибкой уретерореноскопии. [URL].
24. Aldoukhi AH, Hall TL, Ghani KR, et al. Caliceal Fluid Temperature During High-Power Holmium Laser Lithotripsy in an In Vivo Porcine Model. J Endourol. 2018; 32: 724-729. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0395.
25. Maxwell AD, Conaghy BM, Harper JD, et al. Simulation of Laser Lithotripsy-Induced Heating in the Urinary Tract. J Endourol. 2019; 33: 113-119. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0485.
26. Parkhomenko E, Fazio A, Tran T, et al. A multi-institutional study of struvite stones: patterns of infection and colonization. J Endourol. 2017; 317: 533-537. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0885.
27. Fan J, Wan S, Liu L, et al. Predictors for uroseptic shock in patients who undergo minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis. 2017; 45: 573-578. doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-0963-4.
28. Khusid JA, Hordines JC, Sadiq AS, et al. Prevention and Management of Infectious Complications of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. Sec. Genitourinary Surgery. 2021. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.718583.
29. Marien T, Miller NL. Treatment of the infected stone. Urol Clin North Am. 2015; 42: 459-472. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2015.05.009.
30. Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, et al. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology. 2017; 84.
31. Korets R, Graversen JA, Kates M, et al. Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy systemic inflammatory response: a prospective analysis of preoperative urine, renal pelvic urine and stone cultures. J Urol. 2011; 186: 1899-1903. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.064.
32. Castellani D, Teoh JY-C, Pavia MP, et al. Assessing the Optimal Urine Culture for Predicting Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Endourol. 2022; 36: 158-168. doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0386.
33. Толордава Э.Р. Роль бактериальный биопленок в этиопатогенезе мочекаменной болезни: автореф. дис. … канд. биол. наук. М.; 2014.
34. Patel N, Shi W, Liss M, et al. Multidrug resistant bacteriuria before percutaneous nephrolithotomy predicts for postoperative infectious complications. J Endourol. 2015; 29: 531-536. doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0776.
