Suppr超能文献

对于伴有中度或重度肾积水的输尿管结石,冲击波碎石术前是否需要置入支架?

Is pre-shock wave lithotripsy stenting necessary for ureteral stones with moderate or severe hydronephrosis?

作者信息

El-Assmy Ahmed, El-Nahas Ahmed R, Sheir Khaled Z

机构信息

Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

出版信息

J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):2059-62; discussion 2062. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.022.

Abstract

PURPOSE

We performed a prospective, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the outcome of ureteral stents for solitary ureteral stones 2 cm or less in moderately or severely obstructed systems using shock wave lithotripsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2001 and 2004, 186 patients who met study criteria were randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 received a pre-shock wave lithotripsy 6Fr Double-J stent and group 2 had no stent. Patients were treated with a Dornier MFL 5000 lithotripter. Results were compared in terms of clearance rates, number of shock waves and sessions, irritative voiding symptoms, incidence of complications and secondary interventions. Failure was defined as the need for additional procedure(s) for stone extraction.

RESULTS

Overall 164 patients (88.2%) became stone-free after shock wave lithotripsy. Complete stone fragmentation was achieved after 1 to 3 and more than 3 session in 108 (58.1%), 30 (16.1%), 13 (7%) and 14 patients (7.5%), respectively. Ureteral stent insertion did not affect the stone-free rate, which was 84.9% and 91.4% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.25). There was no statistical difference in the re-treatment rate, flank pain or temperature in the 2 groups. However, all patients in the stented group significantly complained of side effects attributable to the stent, including dysuria, suprapubic pain, hematuria, pyuria and positive urinary culture.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment stenting provides no advantage over in situ shock wave lithotripsy for significantly obstructing ureteral calculi. Shock wave lithotripsy is reasonable initial therapy for ureteral stones 2 cm or less that cause moderate or severe hydronephrosis.

摘要

目的

我们进行了一项前瞻性随机临床试验,以评估在中度或重度梗阻系统中,使用冲击波碎石术治疗直径2厘米及以下的孤立性输尿管结石时输尿管支架的效果。

材料与方法

2001年至2004年期间,186名符合研究标准的患者被随机分为两组。第一组在冲击波碎石术前置入一根6Fr双J支架,第二组不置入支架。患者使用多尼尔MFL 5000碎石机进行治疗。比较两组在结石清除率、冲击波次数和治疗次数、刺激性排尿症状、并发症发生率及二次干预方面的结果。治疗失败定义为需要额外进行结石取出手术。

结果

总体上,164名患者(88.2%)在冲击波碎石术后结石清除。108名患者(58.1%)在1至3次治疗后结石完全破碎,30名患者(16.1%)在3次以上治疗后结石完全破碎,13名患者(7%)和14名患者(7.5%)分别在不同情况实现结石完全破碎。输尿管支架置入并不影响结石清除率,第一组和第二组的结石清除率分别为84.9%和91.4%(p = 0.25)。两组在再次治疗率、侧腹疼痛或体温方面无统计学差异。然而,置入支架组的所有患者均明显抱怨支架带来的副作用,包括排尿困难、耻骨上疼痛、血尿、脓尿及尿培养阳性。

结论

对于明显梗阻的输尿管结石,术前置入支架相比原位冲击波碎石术并无优势。冲击波碎石术是治疗直径2厘米及以下导致中度或重度肾积水的输尿管结石的合理初始治疗方法。

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