• 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

比较冲击波碎石术治疗儿童不同部位上尿路结石的疗效和安全性:311 例研究。

Comparison of efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones of different locations in children: a study of 311 cases.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University, Zhongshan Road 321, 210008, Nanjing, China.

出版信息

World J Urol. 2011 Dec;29(6):713-7. doi: 10.1007/s00345-010-0592-9. Epub 2010 Dec 14.

DOI:10.1007/s00345-010-0592-9
PMID:21153828
Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper urinary tract stones of various locations in children.

METHODS

Between 1997 and 2008, a total of 311 children (average age: 7.9 ± 4.4 years, ranged from 6 months to 16 years) with upper urinary tract stones were treated by SWL using Dornier Compact S lithotripter at our department. Of those patients, 196 had renal stones (pelvic, 53; upper and mid calices, 75; lower calices, 68) with an average size of 9.42 ± 7.1 mm, and 115 had ureteral stones (proximal, 53; mid, 16; distal, 46) with an average size of 7.38 ± 5.87 mm.

RESULTS

Overall stone-free rates of renal stones and ureteral stones at 3 months were 95.8% and 94.8% with 83.5% and 79.5% of efficacy quotient (EQ), respectively. In renal stone groups, the EQ for renal pelvic stones was 89.2%, for middle and upper calyx stones was 92.5%, which was higher than 71.9% for lower calices stones. In ureteral stone groups, the 82.3% of EQ for proximal ureteral stones and 83.0% for distal ureteral stones were higher than 63.6% for middle ureteral stones. Patients with larger stones had significant higher re-treatment rate (P < 0.05) and lower EQ than small stone groups. No serious side effect happened in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

SWL for both renal stones and ureteral stones in pediatric group have comparable efficacy and safety, except that stones in lower calices and middle ureters have lower EQ than those in other locations.

摘要

目的

比较体外冲击波碎石术(SWL)治疗儿童不同部位上尿路结石的疗效和安全性。

方法

1997 年至 2008 年,我院采用 Dornier Compact S 碎石机对 311 例上尿路结石患儿(平均年龄:7.9±4.4 岁,年龄范围为 6 个月至 16 岁)进行 SWL 治疗。其中 196 例为肾结石(肾盂结石 53 例,上、中盏结石 75 例,下盏结石 68 例),结石平均大小为 9.42±7.1mm;115 例为输尿管结石(上段结石 53 例,中段结石 16 例,下段结石 46 例),结石平均大小为 7.38±5.87mm。

结果

3 个月时肾结石和输尿管结石的无石率分别为 95.8%和 94.8%,有效率分别为 83.5%和 79.5%。肾结石组肾盂结石的有效率为 89.2%,中上盏结石为 92.5%,下盏结石为 71.9%。输尿管结石组中,上段输尿管结石的有效率为 82.3%,下段输尿管结石的有效率为 83.0%,均高于中段输尿管结石的 63.6%。结石较大的患者再治疗率明显高于结石较小的患者(P<0.05),且有效率较低。研究中未发生严重不良反应。

结论

SWL 治疗儿童肾结石和输尿管结石的疗效和安全性相当,但肾盂和中输尿管结石的有效率低于其他部位的结石。

相似文献

1
Comparison of efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones of different locations in children: a study of 311 cases.比较冲击波碎石术治疗儿童不同部位上尿路结石的疗效和安全性:311 例研究。
World J Urol. 2011 Dec;29(6):713-7. doi: 10.1007/s00345-010-0592-9. Epub 2010 Dec 14.
2
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first line treatment for urinary tract stones in children: outcome of 500 cases.体外冲击波碎石术作为儿童尿路结石的一线治疗方法:500 例病例的结果。
Int Urol Nephrol. 2012 Jun;44(3):661-6. doi: 10.1007/s11255-012-0133-0. Epub 2012 Feb 16.
3
A new optical coupling control technique and application in SWL.一种新的光学耦合控制技术及其在冲击波碎石术中的应用。
Urolithiasis. 2016 Nov;44(6):539-544. doi: 10.1007/s00240-016-0874-9. Epub 2016 Mar 29.
4
Pediatric extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: its efficiency at various locations in the upper tract.小儿体外冲击波碎石术:其在上尿路不同部位的疗效
J Endourol. 2009 Feb;23(2):229-35. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0133.
5
Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower caliceal stones in children compared with stones in other renal locations.与其他肾部位置的结石相比,体外冲击波碎石术治疗儿童孤立性下盏结石的疗效。
Urology. 2006 Jan;67(1):170-4; discussion 174-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.07.061.
6
Piezoelectric shockwave lithotripsy of urinary calculi: comparative study of stone depth in kidney and ureter treatments.尿石症的压电冲击波碎石术:肾脏和输尿管治疗中结石深度的比较研究
J Endourol. 1999 Dec;13(10):699-703. doi: 10.1089/end.1999.13.699.
7
Treatment for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study.中段及下段输尿管结石的治疗:体外冲击波碎石术还是输尿管镜检查?一项多中心研究的结果
J Endourol. 1999 Dec;13(10):727-33. doi: 10.1089/end.1999.13.727.
8
Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones in children.体外冲击波碎石术治疗儿童输尿管结石的疗效
Pediatr Surg Int. 2009 Dec;25(12):1109-12. doi: 10.1007/s00383-009-2489-5. Epub 2009 Oct 9.
9
Which is the best treatment of pediatric upper urinary tract stones among extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review.体外冲击波碎石术、经皮肾镜取石术和逆行性肾内手术治疗小儿上尿路结石的最佳治疗方法:系统评价。
BMC Urol. 2019 Oct 23;19(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0520-2.
10
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones using the Dornier Lithotripter Compact: an experience in Japan.使用多尼尔紧凑型碎石机进行体外冲击波碎石术治疗上尿路结石:日本的经验
Hinyokika Kiyo. 2000 Oct;46(10):701-4.

引用本文的文献

1
What is the optimal frequency in shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal stones? A prospective randomized study.小儿肾结石冲击波碎石术的最佳频率是多少?一项前瞻性随机研究。
Urolithiasis. 2021 Aug;49(4):377-383. doi: 10.1007/s00240-021-01246-6. Epub 2021 Mar 11.
2
Is mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy a safe alternative to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in pediatric age group in borderline stones? a randomized prospective study.微创经皮肾镜取石术是否可作为儿童边缘性结石患者的体外冲击波碎石术的安全替代疗法?一项随机前瞻性研究。
World J Urol. 2018 Jul;36(7):1139-1147. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2231-9. Epub 2018 Feb 15.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in prepubertal children: 22-year experience at a single institution with a single lithotriptor.青春期前儿童的体外冲击波碎石术:一家机构使用单一碎石机的22年经验。
J Urol. 2009 Oct;182(4 Suppl):1835-9. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.04.084. Epub 2009 Aug 18.
2
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi.肾结石的体外冲击波碎石术
J Urol. 2009 Oct;182(4 Suppl):1824-7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.03.018. Epub 2009 Aug 18.
3
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy for renal stones >25 mm in children.
Factors affecting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for unilateral urinary stones in children: a 17-year single-institute experience.
影响儿童单侧尿路结石体外冲击波碎石术治疗效果的因素:一项17年单中心经验
Korean J Urol. 2013 Jul;54(7):460-6. doi: 10.4111/kju.2013.54.7.460. Epub 2013 Jul 15.
儿童25mm以上肾结石的体外冲击波碎石术单一疗法
Urology. 2009 Jul;74(1):109-11. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.09.083. Epub 2009 May 9.
4
Pediatric extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: its efficiency at various locations in the upper tract.小儿体外冲击波碎石术:其在上尿路不同部位的疗效
J Endourol. 2009 Feb;23(2):229-35. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0133.
5
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in pediatrics.儿科体外冲击波碎石术
J Endourol. 2008 Jan;22(1):1-12. doi: 10.1089/end.2007.9864.
6
Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteric stones in children.体外冲击波碎石术治疗儿童输尿管结石的疗效
Int Urol Nephrol. 2006;38(2):225-9. doi: 10.1007/s11255-005-4792-y.
7
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.
8
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first line treatment alternative for urinary tract stones in children: a large scale retrospective analysis.体外冲击波碎石术作为儿童尿路结石一线治疗选择:一项大规模回顾性分析
J Urol. 2003 Dec;170(6 Pt 1):2405-8. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000096422.72846.80.
9
The impact of radiological anatomy in clearance of lower calyceal stones after shock wave lithotripsy in paediatric patients.放射解剖学对小儿患者冲击波碎石术后下盏结石清除的影响。
Eur Urol. 2003 Feb;43(2):188-93. doi: 10.1016/s0302-2838(02)00492-x.
10
Does size and site matter for renal stones up to 30-mm in size in children treated by extracorporeal lithotripsy?对于接受体外冲击波碎石术治疗的儿童,30毫米及以下的肾结石,其大小和位置重要吗?
Urology. 2003 Jan;61(1):212-5; discussion 215. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02128-3.