• 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

移动碎石术服务的疗效:222例患者的一年回顾

Efficacy of a mobile lithotripsy service: a one-year review of 222 patients.

作者信息

Nafie Shady, Dyer James Edward, Minhas Jatinder Singh, Mills Jonathan Arthur, Khan Masood Ahmed

机构信息

Department of Urology, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust , Leicester , UK.

出版信息

Scand J Urol. 2014 Jun;48(3):324-7. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2014.886288. Epub 2014 Feb 12.

DOI:10.3109/21681805.2014.886288
PMID:24521183
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the management of choice for ureteric and renal stones 20 mm or smaller, with a stone clearance rate of up to 89%. This study determined whether such a high success rate could apply to centres using mobile ESWL, by reviewing the performance at one centre that provides such a service.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between July 2011 and July 2012, 222 patients (median age 51 years, range 18-90 years) underwent one to five sessions of ESWL for ureteric and renal stones (mean size 15 mm, range 4-22 mm). Stone clearance was regarded as residual fragments 2 mm or smaller after completion of sessions.

RESULTS

In total, 110 out of 222 patients (49%) were clear of stones. Stones were radiopaque in 198 (89%) and radiolucent in 24 patients (11%), with clearance rates of 48% and 63%, respectively. Regarding size, 36 (16%) were 1-5 mm, 144 (65%) 5-10 mm, 28 (12%) 10-15 mm, eight (4%) 15-20 mm and six (3%) larger than 20 mm, with clearance rates of 61%, 55%, 18%, 13% and 50%, respectively. In total, 173 (78%) were renal stones and 49 (22%) ureteric, with respective clearance rates of 49% and 51%. For kidney stones, 15 (9%) were in the upper, 32 (18%) in the mid, 75 (43%) in the lower pole and 51 (30%) in the pelvis, with clearance rates of 52%, 59%, 49% and 41%; for ureteric stones, 32 (65%) were in the upper, 10 (20%) in the mid and seven (15%) in the lower ureter, with clearance rates of 47%, 70% and 43%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The performance of mobile ESWL was significantly poorer than expected, and this may be related to a lack of clinical ownership. The authors believe that such a service should be permanently placed on site.

摘要

目的

体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)是治疗20毫米及以下输尿管和肾结石的首选方法,结石清除率高达89%。本研究通过回顾一家提供此类服务的中心的治疗情况,确定如此高的成功率是否适用于使用移动ESWL的中心。

材料与方法

2011年7月至2012年7月期间,222例患者(中位年龄51岁,范围18 - 90岁)因输尿管和肾结石接受了1至5次ESWL治疗(平均大小15毫米,范围4 - 22毫米)。结石清除定义为治疗结束后残留碎片为2毫米及以下。

结果

222例患者中共有110例(49%)结石清除。198例(89%)结石为不透X线,24例(11%)为透X线,清除率分别为48%和63%。结石大小方面,36例(16%)为1 - 5毫米,144例(65%)为5 - 10毫米,28例(12%)为10 - 15毫米,8例(4%)为15 - 20毫米,6例(3%)大于20毫米,清除率分别为61%、55%、18%、13%和50%。总共173例(78%)为肾结石,49例(22%)为输尿管结石,清除率分别为49%和51%。肾结石中,15例(9%)位于上极,32例(18%)位于中极,75例(43%)位于下极,51例(30%)位于肾盂,清除率分别为52%、59%、49%和41%;输尿管结石中,32例(65%)位于上段,10例(20%)位于中段,7例(15%)位于下段,清除率分别为47%、70%和43%。

结论

移动ESWL的治疗效果明显低于预期,这可能与缺乏临床自主性有关。作者认为此类服务应永久设置在现场。

相似文献

1
Efficacy of a mobile lithotripsy service: a one-year review of 222 patients.移动碎石术服务的疗效:222例患者的一年回顾
Scand J Urol. 2014 Jun;48(3):324-7. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2014.886288. Epub 2014 Feb 12.
2
Treatment efficacy and outcomes using a third generation shockwave lithotripter.使用第三代体外冲击波碎石机的治疗效果和结果。
BJU Int. 2013 Nov;112(7):972-81. doi: 10.1111/bju.12159.
3
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy to distal ureteric stones: the transgluteal approach significantly increases stone-free rates.体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管远端结石:经臀入路可显著提高结石清除率。
BJU Int. 2013 Jul;112(2):E129-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11738.x. Epub 2013 Jan 29.
4
Outcomes of extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy in renal and ureteral calculi.体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾及输尿管结石的疗效
Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2014 Jan-Mar;12(45):51-4. doi: 10.3126/kumj.v12i1.13639.
5
Effect of diuresis on extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of ureteric calculi.利尿对输尿管结石体外冲击波碎石治疗的影响。
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2002;36(3):209-12. doi: 10.1080/003655902320131893.
6
[Clinical experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with lithodiagnost M for upper urinary tract stones].[使用Lithodiagnost M型体外冲击波碎石术治疗上尿路结石的临床经验]
Hinyokika Kiyo. 1998 Jan;44(1):1-5.
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
[Mobile extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of urinary calculi performed in the county of Ringkjobing].[在灵克宾县进行的尿路结石移动体外冲击波碎石术]
Ugeskr Laeger. 2000 Mar 6;162(10):1375-8.
9
Ureteric stents compromise stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones: results of a matched-pair analysis.输尿管支架影响输尿管结石冲击波碎石术后的结石清除率:配对分析结果
BJU Int. 2009 Jan;103(1):76-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07886.x. Epub 2008 Aug 14.
10
[Clinical experiences of renal and ureteral stones by extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL). IV: 3-year clinical experience of cases treated with ESWL].[体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗肾和输尿管结石的临床经验。IV:ESWL治疗病例的3年临床经验]
Hinyokika Kiyo. 1988 May;34(5):770-6.

引用本文的文献

1
Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜碎石术治疗成人输尿管结石的比较:TISU 非劣效 RCT。
Health Technol Assess. 2022 Mar;26(19):1-70. doi: 10.3310/WUZW9042.
2
Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Ureteric Stones - State-of-the-Art Review.输尿管结石治疗的微创手术——最新进展综述
Res Rep Urol. 2021 May 6;13:227-236. doi: 10.2147/RRU.S311010. eCollection 2021.
3
Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones.
超声辅助与纯透视引导体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾结石的比较。
BMC Urol. 2020 Nov 10;20(1):183. doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00756-6.
4
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.
5
Difference of opinion--In the era of flexible ureteroscopy is there still a place for Shock-wave lithotripsy? Opinion: NO.观点分歧——在输尿管软镜时代,冲击波碎石术是否仍有一席之地?观点:否。
Int Braz J Urol. 2015 Mar-Apr;41(2):203-6. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.02.04.