Tanta University, Faculty of Medicine, Urology Department, Tanta, Egypt.
Urology. 2011 Jan;77(1):30-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.063. Epub 2010 Oct 20.
To compare the safety and efficacy of two different ureteral occlusion devices (stone cone and entrapment net) in preventing retrograde stone migration during ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy. Proximal migration of stone fragments during ureteroscopic lithotripsy is a common problem, especially when the pneumatic lithotripter is used for stone fragmentation.
A total of 195 patients with proximal ureteric stones were prospectively randomized into one of three groups in this study, with 65 patients in each group. In group I, the Stone Cone was used as a ureteral occlusive device; in group II, the N-Trap was used; and in group III (control group), the patients underwent pneumatic lithotripsy without any ureteral occlusive device.
The ureteroscopic procedure was completed successfully in 180 patients; 63 patients in group I, 59 patients in group II, and 58 patients in group III. Patients in group I showed significantly lower incidence of stone migration compared with the other 2 groups (P <.05). Both ureteral occlusive devices significantly lowered the incidence of residual fragments (>3 mm), ureteral trauma, operative time, and the need for ureteral stenting compared with control group. The stone-free rate at 3 weeks was 95.24%, 83.05%, and 72.41% in groups I, II, and III, respectively. The patients in group I had a statistically significant stone-free rate compared with the other two groups (P <.05). Auxiliary procedures were required in 3 (4.76%), 10 (16.94%), and 16 cases (27.58%) in groups I, II, and III, respectively.
The use of Stone Cone or N-Trap is valuable during ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy for treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Both devices significantly diminish residual fragments, the incidence of ureteral wall trauma, and the need for the auxiliary procedure. However, the stone cone was more effective in preventing proximal stone migration and the subsequent stone-free rate.
比较两种不同的输尿管阻塞装置(结石锥和套网)在预防输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术中逆行结石迁移的安全性和疗效。输尿管镜碎石术中结石碎片的近端迁移是一个常见的问题,特别是当使用气压弹道碎石器进行碎石时。
本研究前瞻性随机将 195 例近端输尿管结石患者分为三组,每组 65 例。在组 I 中,结石锥用作输尿管阻塞装置;在组 II 中,使用 N-套网;在组 III(对照组)中,患者在没有任何输尿管阻塞装置的情况下进行气压弹道碎石术。
180 例患者成功完成输尿管镜检查;组 I 中 63 例,组 II 中 59 例,组 III 中 58 例。与其他两组相比,组 I 患者的结石迁移发生率明显较低(P<.05)。两种输尿管阻塞装置均显著降低了残留碎片(>3mm)、输尿管创伤、手术时间和需要输尿管支架置入的发生率,与对照组相比。组 I、II 和 III 的结石清除率分别为 95.24%、83.05%和 72.41%。组 I 的患者结石清除率明显高于其他两组(P<.05)。组 I、II 和 III 分别有 3(4.76%)、10(16.94%)和 16 例(27.58%)需要辅助治疗。
在治疗近端输尿管结石的输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术中,使用结石锥或 N-套网是有价值的。两种装置均显著减少残留碎片、输尿管壁创伤和辅助治疗的需要。然而,结石锥在预防近端结石迁移和随后的结石清除率方面更为有效。