Suppr超能文献

Do upper ureteral stones need to be manipulated (push back) into the kidneys before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy?

作者信息

Cass A S

机构信息

Midwest Urologic Stone Unit, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

出版信息

J Urol. 1992 Feb;147(2):349-51. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37234-8.

Abstract

The current practice for the management of upper ureteral stones is to push the stone back into the renal pelvis before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL*). The results in 903 patients with an upper third ureteral stone pushed back before ESWL were compared to those of 815 with an upper third ureteral stone treated by ESWL in situ with a ureteral stent bypassing the stone. The stone size in the in situ group was larger than in the push back group. More shocks at a higher kilovoltage were required to treat the in situ group. The retreatment rate and post-ESWL secondary procedure rate for the push back group with single stones were 4% and 1.5%, respectively, compared to 5% and 7.5%, respectively, for the in situ group. The stone-free rate with single stones at 3 months was 73% in the push back group and 79% in the in situ group. There appears to be little advantage in manipulating a ureteral stone into the kidney (push back) before treatment by ESWL.

摘要

相似文献

7
Nonstent or noncatheter extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones.
Urology. 1994 Feb;43(2):178-81. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(94)90040-x.
8
An evaluation of 646 stone patients treated on the HM4 extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptor.
J Urol. 1992 Sep;148(3 Pt 2):1114-9. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36835-0.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验