期刊文献+

冲击波碎石与输尿管镜治疗上尿路结石的临床研究 被引量:2

Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopy for Upper Urinary Calculi in Clinical Research
暂未订购
导出
摘要 目的 比较研究冲击波碎石(SWL)与输尿管镜(URS)在治疗上尿路结石的临床疗效,以进一步提高疗效,减少并发症.方法 将收录的69例结石直径在5~20mm的上尿路结石患者随机分为两组,分别施以冲击波碎石(SWL)术和输尿管镜(URS)术,以比较研究两术的临床疗效.比较研究的指标有年龄,性别,结石清除率,治疗情况和结石直径等.结果 SWL组平均手术时间显著小于URS组(60.2±15.9min vs 86.9±32.5min,P〈0.01);术后3个月的追踪研究表明,对SWL组和URS组患者进行X光诊断,结果显示两组患者的结石清除率分别为94.1%和88.6%,并且SWL组的生活质量优于URS组.结论 综合研究显示,SWL治疗中等大小上尿路结石具有比URS较优的临床疗效,并且实施SWL术后患者并发症发生率及恢复时间明显少于URS,显示SWL治疗中等大小匕尿路结石的显著优势. Objective To compare shock wave lithotripsy(SWL) and ureteroscopy(URS) for the treatment of patients with upper urinary tract stones in a prospective,randomized,multicenter trial. Methods A total of 69 patients with 5 - 20mm urinary tract stones were randomized to SWL or URS.The two groups were comparable with respect to age,sex, SFR,side treated and stone diameter.Results Operative time was significantly shorter for SWL than URS(60.2 + l 5.9 minutes vs 86.9 + 32.5 minutes).At 3 months of followup the patients who underwent SWL and URS had radiographic followup that demonstrated a stone-free rate of 94.1% and 88.6%,respectively. Patient derived quality of life measures favored SWL.Conclusion It shows that the better clinical efficacy, the better choice of SWL in the treatment of urinary tract stones for its great advantage in shorten recovery time and lower complication rate comparing to URS.
出处 《中国血液流变学杂志》 CAS 2010年第3期441-442,495,共3页 Chinese Journal of Hemorheology
关键词 冲击波碎石 输尿管镜 上尿路结石 Shock wave lithotripsy(SWL) Ureteroscopy(URS) Urinary tract stones
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

  • 1Abe T,Akakura K.Kawaguchi M,et al.Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones:a largescale study at a single institution[J].J Endourol,2005,19(7):768-773.
  • 2Anagnostou T,Tolley D.Management of ureteric stones[J].Eur Urol,2004,4546):714-721.
  • 3Putman SS,Hamilton BD,Johnson DB.The use of shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi[J].Curr Opin Urol,2004,14(2):117-121.
  • 4Singh I,Gupta NP,Hemal AK,et al.Impact of power index,hydroureteronephrosis,stone size,and composition on the efficacy of in situ boosted ESWL for primary proximal ureteral calculi[J].Urology,2001,58(1):16-22.
  • 5Macaluso JN Jr,Thomas R.Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy:an outpatient procedure[J].J Urol,146(37:714-717.
  • 6Lindqvist K,Holmberg G,Peeker R,et al.Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy as primary treatment for ureteric stones:a retrospective study comparing two different treatment strategies[J].Scand J Urol Nephrol,2006,40(2):113-118.
  • 7Anderson KR,Keetch DW,Albala DM,et al.Optimal therapy for the distal ureteral stone:extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy[J].J Urol,1994,152(1):62-65.
  • 8Byrne RR,Auge BK,Kourambas J,et al.Routine ureteral stenting is not necessary after ureteroscopy and ureteropyeloscopy:a randomized trial[J].J Endourol,2002,16(1):9-13.

同被引文献12

二级引证文献8

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部