Suppr超能文献

超声与气压弹道碎石术在经皮肾镜取石术中的疗效与安全性比较:一项随机临床试验。

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasonic Versus Pneumatic Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

出版信息

Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Feb;3(1):82-88. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.003. Epub 2017 Feb 16.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous nephrolitotomy (PCNL) is the preferred treatment for large renal stones. There is a need for more comparative data for different lithotripters used in PCNL.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative safety and efficacy of ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripsy in patients undergoing PCNL.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at Labbafinejad University Hospital, Tehran, Iran. A total of 180 patients were selected and divided randomly into two groups: 88 patients to pneumatic and 92 to ultrasonic lithotripsy.

INTERVENTION

Standard fluoroscopy-guided PCNL was performed using pneumatic or ultrasonic lithotripsy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the procedure success rate. We also evaluated other outcome measures including operation time, stone fragmentation and removal time (SFRT), length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. We used SPSS software version 18.0 for data analysis.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The two groups were similar in baseline characteristics. There were no significant differences between the groups in stone fragmentation and removal time (p=0.63), stone free rate (p=0.44), and hospital stay (p=0.66). SFRT for hard stones was shorter using pneumatic lithotripsy (p<0.001). By contrast, ultrasonic lithotripsy was associated with a shorter SFRT for soft stones (p<0.001). Postoperative complications were similar in the two groups. A limitation of this study might be the 3-mo follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, there were no significant differences in the success rate and complications between pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. SFRT was significantly shorter using pneumatic lithotripsy for hard stones, and ultrasonic lithotripsy for soft stones.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found no significant differences in the success rate and complications of percutaneous nephrolitotomy using pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. Ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripsy differed in the time for stone fragmentation and removal for hard and soft stones.

摘要

背景

经皮肾镜碎石术(PCNL)是治疗大肾结石的首选方法。对于 PCNL 中使用的不同碎石器,需要更多的比较数据。

目的

评估超声和气压弹道碎石术在接受 PCNL 治疗的患者中的安全性和疗效。

设计、设置和参与者:这项随机临床试验在伊朗德黑兰的拉巴菲内加德大学医院进行。共选择了 180 名患者,并随机分为两组:88 名患者接受气压弹道碎石术,92 名患者接受超声碎石术。

干预措施

使用气压弹道或超声碎石术进行标准透视引导下的 PCNL。

结果测量和统计分析

主要结局是手术成功率。我们还评估了其他结局测量指标,包括手术时间、结石碎裂和清除时间(SFRT)、住院时间和术后并发症。我们使用 SPSS 软件版本 18.0 进行数据分析。

结果和局限性

两组患者的基线特征相似。两组患者在结石碎裂和清除时间(p=0.63)、结石清除率(p=0.44)和住院时间(p=0.66)方面无显著差异。气压弹道碎石术用于硬结石时 SFRT 更短(p<0.001)。相比之下,超声碎石术用于软结石时 SFRT 更短(p<0.001)。两组患者的术后并发症相似。本研究的一个局限性可能是 3 个月的随访期。

结论

总的来说,气压弹道碎石术和超声碎石术在成功率和并发症方面没有显著差异。对于硬结石,气压弹道碎石术的 SFRT 明显更短,而对于软结石,超声碎石术的 SFRT 更短。

患者总结

我们发现,使用气压弹道和超声碎石术进行经皮肾镜碎石术的成功率和并发症没有显著差异。超声和气压弹道碎石术在硬结石和软结石的碎石和清除时间上存在差异。

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