• 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

评估下极肾盏主要空间解剖学因素之间的关系对下极肾结石患者冲击波碎石术成功率的影响。

Evaluation of the effects of relationships between main spatial lower pole calyceal anatomic factors on the success of shock-wave lithotripsy in patients with lower pole kidney stones.

作者信息

Sahinkanat Tayfun, Ekerbicer Hasan, Onal Bulent, Tansu Nejat, Resim Sefa, Citgez Sinharib, Oner Armagan

机构信息

Department of Urology, University of Kahramanmaras Sutcuimam School of Medicine, Kahramanmaras, Turkey.

出版信息

Urology. 2008 May;71(5):801-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.11.052. Epub 2008 Feb 15.

DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2007.11.052
PMID:18279941
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of lower pole calyceal anatomy on lower pole stone clearance after shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL).

METHODS

A total of 133 patients who had single lower pole radio-opaque stones treated with SWL alone and who became stone-free or had clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRF) were included in the study. Pre-shock-wave lithotripsy intravenous urograms were used to determine the lower pole infundibular width and length, lower pole infundibulopelvic (LPIP) angle, caliceal pelvic height (CPH), and lower infundibular length-to-width ratio. In addition, to evaluate the relationship between LPIP and CPH, a more simple alternative measurement instead of LPIP angle, called the parenchyma-to-ureter distance (PUD), was suggested. The correlation between LPIP and PUD was then examined, and a good correlation was found between these values (P <0.000, r = 0.64). The PUD/CPH ratio was also calculated.

RESULTS

The stone-free rate was 62%. According to the cutoff points, the lower infundibular length-to-width ratio and PUD/CPH ratio were different in the stone-free and CIRF groups by univariate analysis but not by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the anatomic factors had a statistically significant effect in predicting the success of SWL in patients with lower pole stones. Nevertheless, evaluation of relationships between lower pole anatomic factors may offer some help in reaching a more accurate interpretation of lower pole stone clearance after SWL.

摘要

目的

评估冲击波碎石术(SWL)后下极肾盏解剖结构对下极结石清除率的影响。

方法

本研究纳入了133例仅接受SWL治疗的单发性下极不透X线结石患者,这些患者结石清除或残留临床意义不大的碎片(CIRF)。术前冲击波碎石术静脉肾盂造影用于确定下极漏斗部宽度和长度、下极漏斗肾盂(LPIP)角、肾盂高度(CPH)以及下漏斗部长度与宽度之比。此外,为了评估LPIP与CPH之间的关系,提出了一种更简单的替代测量方法,即实质到输尿管距离(PUD),以取代LPIP角。然后检查LPIP与PUD之间的相关性,发现这些值之间存在良好的相关性(P<0.000,r=0.64)。还计算了PUD/CPH比值。

结果

结石清除率为62%。根据截断点,单因素分析显示结石清除组和CIRF组在下漏斗部长度与宽度之比和PUD/CPH比值方面存在差异,但多因素分析未显示差异。

结论

在预测下极结石患者SWL治疗成功方面,没有一个解剖因素具有统计学意义。然而,评估下极解剖因素之间的关系可能有助于更准确地解释SWL后下极结石的清除情况。

相似文献

1
Evaluation of the effects of relationships between main spatial lower pole calyceal anatomic factors on the success of shock-wave lithotripsy in patients with lower pole kidney stones.评估下极肾盏主要空间解剖学因素之间的关系对下极肾结石患者冲击波碎石术成功率的影响。
Urology. 2008 May;71(5):801-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.11.052. Epub 2008 Feb 15.
2
Does lower-pole caliceal anatomy predict stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for primary lower-pole nephrolithiasis?下极肾盏解剖结构能否预测原发性下极肾结石冲击波碎石术后的结石清除情况?
Urol Int. 2007;79(2):129-32. doi: 10.1159/000106325.
3
Impact of lower pole anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy.下极解剖结构对冲击波碎石术后结石清除率的影响。
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2005 Aug;21(8):358-64. doi: 10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70134-2.
4
Randomized controlled study of mechanical percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy to assist passage of lower pole renal calculi after shock wave lithotripsy.冲击波碎石术后机械叩击、利尿及倒立法辅助下极肾结石排出的随机对照研究
Urology. 2005 Jun;65(6):1070-4. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.12.045.
5
The impact of caliceal pelvic anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric lower pole stones.肾盂肾盏解剖结构对小儿下极结石冲击波碎石术后结石清除的影响。
J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):1082-6. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000135670.83076.5c.
6
Predictive factors of lower calyceal stone clearance after Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL): a focus on the infundibulopelvic anatomy.体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)后下盏结石清除的预测因素:聚焦于肾盂漏斗部解剖结构
Eur Urol. 2005 Aug;48(2):296-302; discussion 302. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.02.017. Epub 2005 Mar 9.
7
Infundibulopelvic anatomy and clearance of inferior caliceal calculi with shock wave lithotripsy.漏斗骨盆解剖结构与冲击波碎石术治疗下盏肾结石的结石清除情况
J Urol. 2000 Jan;163(1):24-7.
8
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of lower calyx calculi: how much is treatment outcome influenced by the anatomy of the collecting system?下盏结石的体外冲击波碎石术:集合系统的解剖结构对治疗结果有多大影响?
Eur Urol. 2007 Aug;52(2):539-46. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.03.058. Epub 2007 Mar 28.
9
Is there a simpler method for predicting lower pole stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy than measuring infundibulopelvic angle?与测量肾盂漏斗部角度相比,是否存在更简单的方法来预测冲击波碎石术后下极结石的清除情况?
J Endourol. 2000 Aug;14(6):475-8. doi: 10.1089/end.2000.14.475.
10
[Predictive factors of successful treatment of lower caliceal calculi with Edap LT02 extracorporeal lithotripsy].[Edap LT02体外冲击波碎石术成功治疗下盏结石的预测因素]
Prog Urol. 2000 Sep;10(4):529-36.

引用本文的文献

1
Which localization method is optimal in ESWL: fluoroscopy or ultrasonography?在体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)中,哪种定位方法最佳:荧光透视还是超声检查?
BMC Urol. 2025 Feb 20;25(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12894-025-01716-8.
2
Heavy as a rock or light as dust: a comparison between the perceived workload for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.重如磐石或轻如微尘:体外冲击波碎石术、输尿管肾镜检查和经皮肾镜取石术的感知工作量比较
Cent European J Urol. 2024;77(1):129-135. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2023.214. Epub 2024 Jan 26.
3
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones in adults.
经皮肾镜碎石术与逆行性肾内手术治疗成人肾结石。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 13;11(11):CD013445. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013445.pub2.
4
Modified shockwave propulsion lithotripsy improves the lower pole renal stone clearance.改良冲击波推石碎石术提高了肾下盏结石清除率。
Urolithiasis. 2022 Dec;50(6):751-757. doi: 10.1007/s00240-022-01361-y. Epub 2022 Sep 26.
5
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.冲击波碎石术、逆行肾内手术、经皮肾镜取石术及微创经皮肾镜取石术治疗下极肾结石的疗效与安全性比较:一项系统评价和网状Meta分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Mar;99(10):e19403. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019403.
6
Surgical management of urolithiasis - a systematic analysis of available guidelines.尿路结石的外科治疗——现有指南的系统分析
BMC Urol. 2018 Apr 10;18(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12894-018-0332-9.
7
Efficacy of commercialised extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy service: a review of 589 renal stones.商业化体外冲击波碎石术服务的疗效:对589例肾结石的回顾
BMC Urol. 2017 Jul 27;17(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0249-8.
8
[S2k guidelines on diagnostics, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis (AWMF 043/025) : Compendium].[S2k 尿路结石诊断、治疗及群体预防指南(德国医学科学院 043/025):概要]
Urologe A. 2016 Jul;55(7):904-22. doi: 10.1007/s00120-016-0133-2.
9
Changes in Urolithiasis Referral Patterns for Shock Wave Lithotripsy over a Decade: Was There Adherence to AUA/EAU Guidelines?十年来冲击波碎石术治疗尿路结石转诊模式的变化:是否遵循了美国泌尿外科学会/欧洲泌尿外科学会指南?
Curr Urol. 2015 Sep;8(3):144-8. doi: 10.1159/000365706. Epub 2015 Sep 4.
10
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower-pole stones.体外冲击波碎石术与经皮肾镜取石术及软性输尿管肾镜治疗下极结石的比较
Arab J Urol. 2012 Sep;10(3):336-41. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.06.004. Epub 2012 Jul 24.