• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

体外冲击波碎石术和经皮肾镜取石术治疗中等大小肾结石的成本效益。一项随机临床试验。

Cost effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized kidney stones. A randomised clinical trial.

作者信息

Carlsson P, Kinn A C, Tiselius H G, Ohlsén H, Rahmqvist M

机构信息

Center for Medical Technology Assessment, Linköping University, Sweden.

出版信息

Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1992;26(3):257-63. doi: 10.3109/00365599209180879.

DOI:10.3109/00365599209180879
PMID:1439601
Abstract

To evaluate percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for their clinical effects, their cost effectiveness, their complication rates, and the patients' experiences, 55 consecutive patients were randomised to have one or other operation between October 1986 and October 1988. Six patients were excluded, 21 were treated with PNL and 28 with ESWL as primary treatment. Mean hospital stay and length of treatment were longer for PNL than for ESWL. Since 1 July 1987 all patients having ESWL have been treated without anaesthesia (n = 15), whereas epidural anaesthesia was used for all PNL. Slightly more of the ESWL patients experienced some pain during treatment. Minor complications or pain were more common after ESWL during the first 10 days after discharge from hospital. If patients with stone fragments of 4 mm or less were regarded as having a successful outcome, the success rates after one year were 94% for PNL and 77% for ESWL. The overall total cost was lower for ESWL than for PNL, the cost per successfully treated patient being 2172 pounds for PNL and 1810 pounds for ESWL. Medium sized kidney stones (6-30 mm, or 2-3 stones of 20 mm or less) can be efficiently and cheaply treated by both PNL and ESWL, though the cost of ESWL is lower. Even if effects other than cost (such as complications and patients' experience) are borne in mind, ESWL was superior to PNL for this group of patients.

摘要

为评估经皮肾镜取石术(PNL)和体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)的临床效果、成本效益、并发症发生率以及患者体验,1986年10月至1988年10月期间,连续55例患者被随机分配接受其中一种手术。6例患者被排除,21例接受PNL作为主要治疗,28例接受ESWL作为主要治疗。PNL的平均住院时间和治疗时长比ESWL更长。自1987年7月1日起,所有接受ESWL的患者均在无麻醉情况下接受治疗(n = 15),而所有PNL患者均采用硬膜外麻醉。接受ESWL的患者在治疗期间略多有一些疼痛体验。出院后头10天内,ESWL后轻微并发症或疼痛更为常见。如果将结石碎片4毫米及以下的患者视为治疗成功,那么PNL术后一年的成功率为94%,ESWL为77%。ESWL的总体总成本低于PNL,PNL每例成功治疗患者的成本为2172英镑,ESWL为1810英镑。中等大小的肾结石(6 - 30毫米,或2 - 3颗20毫米及以下的结石),PNL和ESWL均可有效且低成本地进行治疗,不过ESWL成本更低。即便考虑成本以外的因素(如并发症和患者体验),对于这组患者而言,ESWL仍优于PNL。

相似文献

1
Cost effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized kidney stones. A randomised clinical trial.体外冲击波碎石术和经皮肾镜取石术治疗中等大小肾结石的成本效益。一项随机临床试验。
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1992;26(3):257-63. doi: 10.3109/00365599209180879.
2
Cost and effectiveness of different treatment alternatives in urinary stone practice.尿路结石治疗中不同治疗方案的成本与效果
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1995 Dec;29(4):437-47. doi: 10.3109/00365599509180025.
3
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for moderate sized kidney stones.经皮肾镜碎石术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗中等大小肾结石。
Urology. 2011 Oct;78(4):739-43. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.010. Epub 2011 Jun 12.
4
[Solitary stones of the lower renal calyx: how to treat?].[肾下盏孤立结石:如何治疗?]
Urologiia. 2017 Jun(2):28-35. doi: 10.18565/urol.2017.2.28-35.
5
Cost effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized kidney stones: a randomised clinical trial.
J Urol. 1993 Aug;150(2 Pt 1):565.
6
Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy.
Urology. 1988 Mar;31(3):225-30. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(88)90146-x.
7
[Clinical experience with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in upper urinary tract stones].[体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗上尿路结石的临床经验]
Hinyokika Kiyo. 1988 Jan;34(1):73-8.
8
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones.体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)与经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)或逆行肾内手术(RIRS)治疗肾结石的比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7(4):CD007044. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub2.
9
The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol.经皮肾镜碎石术、软性输尿管镜碎石术和体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾下极结石的临床和成本效益:肾下极结石随机对照试验(PUrE RCT)方案。
Trials. 2020 Jun 4;21(1):479. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04326-x.
10
Relative costs and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and ureteric stones.
Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(12):1401-12. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90201-m.

引用本文的文献

1
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones.体外冲击波碎石术 (ESWL) 与经皮肾镜碎石取石术 (PCNL) 或逆行肾内手术 (RIRS) 治疗肾结石的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Aug 1;8(8):CD007044. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub4.
2
The effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of kidney stones: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾结石的有效性和安全性:一项系统评价与荟萃分析方案
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 May;99(19):e19915. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019915.
3
Tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower calyceal stones of ⩽2 cm: A prospective randomised controlled study.
无管微通道经皮肾镜取石术与逆行肾内手术治疗直径≤2 cm的下盏结石:一项前瞻性随机对照研究。
Arab J Urol. 2016 Nov 29;15(1):36-41. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2016.10.002. eCollection 2017 Mar.
4
Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in a poor resource setting: The Okada, Nigeria experience.
Niger Med J. 2016 Jan-Feb;57(1):44-8. doi: 10.4103/0300-1652.180568.
5
An overview of treatment options for urinary stones.尿路结石治疗选择概述。
Caspian J Intern Med. 2016 Winter;7(1):1-6.
6
Retrograde upper-pole calyceal access for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy of stones in the lower-pole calyx.经逆行上极肾盏通路行下极肾盏结石的经皮肾镜碎石术
Arab J Urol. 2012 Dec;10(4):353-7. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.08.002. Epub 2012 Sep 23.
7
Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.选择体外冲击波碎石术治疗尿路结石的理由。
Urolithiasis. 2015 Oct;43(5):387-96. doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0818-9. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
8
[Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones].
Urologe A. 2015 Sep;54(9):1283-6. doi: 10.1007/s00120-015-3928-7.
9
[Modern urinary stone therapy: is the era of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy at an end?].[现代尿石症治疗:体外冲击波碎石术的时代即将结束?]
Urologe A. 2012 Mar;51(3):372-8. doi: 10.1007/s00120-012-2828-3.