Suppr超能文献

治疗大于1.5厘米的中段输尿管结石的最佳选择是什么?

Which is the best option to treat large (>1.5 cm) midureteric calculi?

作者信息

Khaladkar Suparu, Modi Jayesh, Bhansali Manish, Dobhada Satyen, Patankar Suresh

机构信息

Department of Urology, AMAI Trust's Institute of Urology, S. No.32/2A Gulawani Maharaj Road, Erandwane, Maharashtra, Pune, India.

出版信息

J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009 Aug;19(4):501-4. doi: 10.1089/lap.2008.0299.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Before the 1980s, ureteric stones were managed by open ureterolithotomy. Since the introduction of shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy, the use of an open surgical approach for the removal of ureteric stones has rapidly declined. Open surgery, which is currently being replicated by laparoscopic techniques, is generally indicated for failed endourologic procedures, particularly in centers that do not have flexible ureteroscopy or laser lithotripter, and in patients with larger stones. Considering this, we conducted a retrospective study to compare the different modalities for the management of midureteric calculi of more than 1.5 cm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between August 2000 and July 2005, a total of 71 patients with large midureteric calculi (>1.5 cm in size) were treated with the three different modalities; SWL, ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS), and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy at AMAI Trust's Institute of Urology. Data were collected and all the patients were analyzed for stone-free rate, intraoperative and immediate postoperative complications, and the results were calculated.

RESULTS

Stone clearance was 39.1% with SWL (group 1), 79.2% with ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (group 2), and 100% with the laparoscopic method (group 3), with a statistically significant difference between groups 1 and three and groups 1 and 2, but there was no statistical significance in groups 2 and three. However, hospital stay and hence morbidity was significantly greater in group 3, when compared to the other two groups.

CONCLUSION

SWL gives the least clearance for large midureteric calculi. Statistically, URS and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy give equal results; hence, URS still remains the treatment of choice for the treatment of large midureteric calculi considering the low morbidity and acceptable stone-free rate of the procedure. Though laparoscopic ureterolithotomy can be considered as a treatment option, prospective, randomized trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of one modality of treatment over the other.

摘要

引言

20世纪80年代以前,输尿管结石通过开放性输尿管切开取石术治疗。自从冲击波碎石术(SWL)和输尿管镜检查问世以来,采用开放性手术方法治疗输尿管结石的情况迅速减少。目前正在被腹腔镜技术取代的开放性手术,一般适用于腔内泌尿外科手术失败的情况,特别是在没有可弯曲输尿管镜或激光碎石器的中心,以及结石较大的患者。考虑到这一点,我们进行了一项回顾性研究,以比较治疗直径超过1.5厘米的输尿管中段结石的不同方法。

材料与方法

2000年8月至2005年7月期间,共有71例输尿管中段大结石(直径>1.5厘米)患者在阿玛伊信托泌尿外科研究所接受了三种不同方法的治疗,即SWL、输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术(URS)和腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术。收集了数据,并对所有患者的结石清除率、术中及术后即刻并发症进行了分析,并计算了结果。

结果

SWL组(第1组)的结石清除率为39.1%,输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术组(第2组)为79.2%,腹腔镜手术组(第3组)为100%,第1组和第3组以及第1组和第2组之间存在统计学显著差异,但第2组和第3组之间无统计学意义。然而,与其他两组相比,第3组的住院时间及因此产生的发病率明显更高。

结论

对于输尿管中段大结石,SWL的结石清除率最低。从统计学上看,URS和腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术的效果相当;因此,考虑到该手术的低发病率和可接受的结石清除率,URS仍然是治疗输尿管中段大结石的首选方法。虽然腹腔镜输尿管切开取石术可被视为一种治疗选择,但需要进行前瞻性随机试验以证实一种治疗方法相对于另一种治疗方法的疗效。

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