• 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

哪种导丝最适合绕过嵌顿的输尿管结石?

What Guidewire Is the Best for Bypassing an Impacted Ureteral Stone?

机构信息

Department of Urology, Loma Linda University Health System, Loma Linda, California.

出版信息

J Endourol. 2020 May;34(5):629-636. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0058. Epub 2020 Apr 13.

DOI:10.1089/end.2020.0058
PMID:32070125
Abstract

To determine the optimal guidewire for bypassing an impacted ureteral stone. Three different benchtop models of varying impaction (300, 362, and 444 mm Hg pressure) were used to compare the ability of 13 different guidewires to bypass an impacted ureteral stone. In the first and second models, we recorded the maximum force required to bypass the stone. In the first model (300 mm Hg) 10 new wires for each of the 13 types were advanced past a ureteral stone using a series 5 digital force gauge. In the second model (362 mm Hg), the top 5 performing guidewires were similarly tested. In the third model (444 mm Hg), 5 attending urologists and 5 urology residents (blinded to wire type) compared the 13 guidewires and rated the wire performance using a Likert scale. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance and the chi-square test. In the first model, there was a significant difference between wires ( < 0.001) with the lowest mean force to bypass a stone seen in the Glidewire (0.117 ± 0.02 lbs) and HiWire (0.130 ± 0.01 lbs). Of the five wires tested in the second model, the Glidewire (0.24 ± 0.09 lbs) and UltraTrack (0.40 ± 0.35 lbs) both required less force than the other three wires ( = 0.018). In the third model, only two wires (Roadrunner and Glidewire) bypassed the impacted stone in 100% of trials. When comparing standard, hybrid, and hydrophilic wires, the hydrophilic had the highest success rate (standard = 0%, hybrid = 36.67%, and hydrophilic = 70.67%;  = 0.000) and Likert score (standard = 1.03, hybrid = 2.38, and hydrophilic = 3.24;  = 0.000). Hydrophilic wires required the least time to bypass the stone (hybrid = 82.81 seconds hydrophilic = 45.37 seconds,  = 0.000). In this benchtop study, standard wires performed poorly and hybrid wires were not as effective as hydrophilic wires. The Glidewire required the least force, the shortest insertion time, and had the highest surgeon satisfaction rating.

摘要

为了确定用于绕过嵌顿输尿管结石的最佳导丝。使用三种不同的、嵌顿程度不同的台式模型(300、362 和 444mmHg 压力),比较了 13 种不同导丝绕过嵌顿输尿管结石的能力。在第一个和第二个模型中,我们记录了绕过结石所需的最大力。在第一个模型(300mmHg)中,使用系列 5 数字力计将 10 根新的每种类型的导丝推进到输尿管结石后面。在第二个模型(362mmHg)中,同样测试了前 5 种性能最好的导丝。在第三个模型(444mmHg)中,5 名主治泌尿科医生和 5 名泌尿科住院医师(对导丝类型不知情)比较了 13 种导丝,并使用李克特量表对导丝性能进行评分。使用方差分析和卡方检验进行统计分析。在第一个模型中,导丝之间存在显著差异( < 0.001),通过结石的最低平均力在 Glidewire(0.117±0.02 磅)和 HiWire(0.130±0.01 磅)中看到。在第二个模型中测试的 5 根导丝中,Glidewire(0.24±0.09 磅)和 UltraTrack(0.40±0.35 磅)的力均小于其他三根导丝( = 0.018)。在第三个模型中,只有两根导丝(Roadrunner 和 Glidewire)在 100%的试验中成功绕过嵌顿结石。在比较标准、混合和亲水导丝时,亲水导丝的成功率最高(标准 = 0%,混合 = 36.67%,亲水 = 70.67%; = 0.000)和李克特评分(标准 = 1.03,混合 = 2.38,亲水 = 3.24; = 0.000)。亲水导丝绕过结石所需的时间最短(混合 = 82.81 秒,亲水 = 45.37 秒; = 0.000)。在这项台式研究中,标准导丝表现不佳,而混合导丝不如亲水导丝有效。Glidewire 需要的力最小,插入时间最短,并且得到了最高的手术医生满意度评分。

相似文献

1
What Guidewire Is the Best for Bypassing an Impacted Ureteral Stone?哪种导丝最适合绕过嵌顿的输尿管结石?
J Endourol. 2020 May;34(5):629-636. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0058. Epub 2020 Apr 13.
2
Systematic evaluation of hybrid guidewires: shaft stiffness, lubricity, and tip configuration.杂交导丝的系统评价:轴体硬度、润滑性和尖端结构。
Urology. 2012 Mar;79(3):513-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.017. Epub 2011 Dec 14.
3
Guidewire type and prior use affects ureteral stent insertion force.导丝类型和先前使用会影响输尿管支架置入力。
Can J Urol. 2020 Apr;27(2):10174-10180.
4
New technique of ureteral stent placement for impacted ureteral calculus: the glidewire loop technique.用于嵌顿性输尿管结石的输尿管支架置入新技术:导丝环技术
Urology. 1997 Apr;49(4):614-7. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(96)00562-6.
5
Comparison of physician-rated performance characteristics of hydrophilic-coated guide wires.亲水涂层导丝的医生评定性能特征比较。
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008 Mar;19(3):400-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2007.09.017.
6
Hydrophilic guidewires: evaluation and comparison of their properties and safety.亲水性导丝:性能与安全性评价及比较。
Urology. 2013 Nov;82(5):1182-6. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.024. Epub 2013 Aug 28.
7
Peri-Calculus Ureteral Thickness on Computed Tomography Predicts Stone Impaction at Time of Surgery: A Prospective Study.术前 CT 测量肾盂输尿管移行部厚度预测结石嵌顿的前瞻性研究。
J Endourol. 2020 Jan;34(1):107-111. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0449. Epub 2019 Nov 25.
8
Comparison of hydrophilic guidewires used in endovascular procedures.血管内手术中使用的亲水导丝的比较。
J Invasive Cardiol. 2009 Aug;21(8):397-400.
9
The influence of variable-stiffness guide wires on basal biliary sphincter of Oddi pressure measured at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.经内镜逆行胰胆管造影时测量可变硬度导丝对Oddi 基底胆管括约肌压力的影响。
Endoscopy. 2010 May;42(5):375-80. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1244117. Epub 2010 Apr 27.
10
Characteristics and outcomes of ureteroscopic treatment in 2650 patients with impacted ureteral stones.2650 例嵌顿性输尿管结石患者输尿管镜治疗的特点和结局。
World J Urol. 2017 Oct;35(10):1497-1506. doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2028-2. Epub 2017 Mar 20.