• 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

How significant are clinically insignificant residual fragments following lithotripsy?

作者信息

Tan Yeh Hong, Wong Michael

机构信息

Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore 169-608, Singapore.

出版信息

Curr Opin Urol. 2005 Mar;15(2):127-31. doi: 10.1097/01.mou.0000160628.43860.f9.

DOI:10.1097/01.mou.0000160628.43860.f9
PMID:15725937
Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy had revolutionized the treatment of kidney stones. Residual fragments smaller than 4 or 5 mm which are asymptomatic and likely to pass spontaneously are termed as clinically insignificant residual fragments. This article reviews the current literature with regards to the management of clinically insignificant residual fragments.

RECENT FINDINGS

However, the term is controversial because no consensus has been reached regarding its exact definition or interval after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy to evaluate its presence. While most small residual stone fragments might be managed expectantly, a significant number of patients might become symptomatic or require intervention. These so-called clinically insignificant residual fragments have the potential to cause obstruction and are important risk factors for stone recurrence and re-growth.

SUMMARY

Residual fragments require close monitoring for stone growth, potential complications and subsequent intervention. Secondary procedures may be applied selectively to those patients who have significant symptoms of obstruction associated with the residual stone. Medical therapy might play an important role in the management of residual fragments.

摘要

相似文献

1
How significant are clinically insignificant residual fragments following lithotripsy?
Curr Opin Urol. 2005 Mar;15(2):127-31. doi: 10.1097/01.mou.0000160628.43860.f9.
2
Are small residual stone fragments really insignificant in children?小儿结石残留碎片真的无关紧要吗?
J Pediatr Surg. 2013 Apr;48(4):840-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2012.07.061.
3
Effect of medical management and residual fragments on recurrent stone formation following shock wave lithotripsy.冲击波碎石术后内科治疗及残留碎片对结石复发形成的影响。
J Urol. 1995 Jan;153(1):27-32; discussion 32-3. doi: 10.1097/00005392-199501000-00010.
4
Treatment of renal stones by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
Nephron. 1999;81 Suppl 1:71-81. doi: 10.1159/000046302.
5
5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.体外冲击波碎石术后临床意义不显著的残留碎片患者的5年随访
Eur Urol. 2005 Jun;47(6):860-4. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.01.005. Epub 2005 Jan 19.
6
[Significance of "clinically insignificant residual fragments" (CIRF) after ESWL].[体外冲击波碎石术后“临床无意义残留碎片”(CIRF)的意义]
Urologe A. 1997 May;36(3):226-30. doi: 10.1007/s001200050094.
7
Is there a role for prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for asymptomatic calyceal stones?预防性冲击波碎石术对无症状肾盏结石是否有效?
Curr Opin Urol. 2002 Jul;12(4):281-6. doi: 10.1097/00042307-200207000-00004.
8
Renal stone fragments following shock wave lithotripsy.冲击波碎石术后的肾结石碎片
J Urol. 1997 Aug;158(2):352-5.
9
Clinical implications of clinically insignificant store fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.体外冲击波碎石术后临床意义不显著的结石碎片的临床影响。
J Urol. 1996 Apr;155(4):1186-90.
10
The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones.冲击波碎石术(SWL)治疗中等大小(10 - 20毫米)肾结石的成效。
Urolithiasis. 2016 Oct;44(5):441-4. doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0857-2. Epub 2016 Jan 7.

引用本文的文献

1
Residual stone fragments: systematic review of definitions, diagnostic standards.残留结石碎片:定义与诊断标准的系统评价
World J Urol. 2025 Mar 28;43(1):194. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05572-x.
2
The significance of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an analysis into the relevance of complete stone clearance.经皮肾镜碎石取石术后临床无意义残余碎片的意义:完全结石清除相关性的分析。
World J Urol. 2024 Feb 14;42(1):78. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04774-z.
3
GeoBioMed perspectives on kidney stone recurrence from the reactive surface area of SWL-derived particles.
从 SWL 衍生颗粒的反应表面积看 GeoBioMed 对肾结石复发的观点。
Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 1;12(1):18371. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23331-5.
4
Grooved vs smooth ureteric stent before extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: Single-blind randomised clinical trial.体外冲击波碎石术前带槽输尿管支架与光滑输尿管支架的比较:单盲随机临床试验
Arab J Urol. 2021 Dec 7;20(1):41-48. doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2021.2004502. eCollection 2022.
5
Immediate versus delayed shockwave lithotripsy for inaccessible stones after uncomplicated percutaneous nephrolithotomy.单纯经皮肾镜取石术后难以触及结石的即时与延迟冲击波碎石术
Arab J Urol. 2016 Dec 28;15(1):30-35. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2016.11.002. eCollection 2017 Mar.
6
[Stone treatment tomorrow and the day after].[明天和后天进行结石治疗]
Urologe A. 2016 Oct;55(10):1309-1316. doi: 10.1007/s00120-016-0227-x.
7
Clearance rates of residual stone fragments and dusts after endoscopic lithotripsy procedures using a holmium laser: 2-year follow-up results.钬激光内镜碎石术后残余结石碎片和结石粉末的清除率:2年随访结果
World J Urol. 2016 Nov;34(11):1591-1597. doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1807-5. Epub 2016 Mar 21.
8
Medium-term follow-up of clinically insignificant residual fragments after minimal invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prognostic features and risk factors.微创经皮肾镜取石术后临床无意义残留碎片的中期随访:预后特征及危险因素
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Nov 15;8(11):21664-8. eCollection 2015.
9
Clinical significance of residual fragments in 2015: impact, detection, and how to avoid them.2015年残留碎片的临床意义:影响、检测及如何避免残留碎片
World J Urol. 2016 Jun;34(6):771-8. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1713-2. Epub 2015 Oct 23.
10
A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study.直径大于2厘米的肾盂结石中标准经皮肾镜取石术与分期逆行输尿管软镜碎石术的比较:一项前瞻性随机研究。
Urolithiasis. 2015 Jun;43(3):283-7. doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0768-2. Epub 2015 Apr 3.