• 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

在 COVID-19 大流行期间,比较冲击波碎石术和输尿管镜取石术治疗近端输尿管结石的效果。

Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, 36 Sanhao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

World J Urol. 2023 Mar;41(3):797-803. doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04307-0. Epub 2023 Feb 2.

DOI:10.1007/s00345-023-04307-0
PMID:36729301
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9892663/
Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost between ultrasound-guided shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with an early second session protocol and ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with proximal ureteral stones using the propensity score matching (PSM) method based on a large prospective study.

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or URS) for proximal ureteral stones were enrolled. The stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and cost were recorded. PSM analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1230 patients were included, of whom 81.1% (998) were treated with SWL and 18.9% (232) were treated with URS. After PSM, the SWL group had an equivalent SFR at one month (88.7 vs. 83.6%, P = 0.114) compared with the URS group. Complications were rare and comparable between the two groups, while the incidence of ureteral injuries was higher in the URS group compared with the SWL group (1.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.011). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs. 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (2000 vs. 25,053, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the URS group.

CONCLUSION

This prospective PSM cohort demonstrated that ultrasound-guided SWL with an early second session protocol had equivalent effectiveness but better safety and lower cost compared with URS in the treatment of patients with proximal ureteral stones, whether the stones were radiopaque or radiolucent. These results will facilitate treatment decisions for proximal ureteral stones.

摘要

目的

通过基于大样本前瞻性研究的倾向评分匹配(PSM)方法,比较超声引导下冲击波碎石术(SWL)与输尿管镜碎石术(URS)治疗输尿管上段结石的有效性、安全性和成本。

方法

本前瞻性研究于 2020 年 6 月至 2022 年 4 月在一家三级医院进行。纳入接受碎石术(SWL 或 URS)治疗输尿管上段结石的患者。记录结石清除率(SFR)、并发症和成本。进行 PSM 分析。

结果

共纳入 1230 例患者,其中 81.1%(998 例)接受 SWL 治疗,18.9%(232 例)接受 URS 治疗。PSM 后,SWL 组一个月时的 SFR 与 URS 组相当(88.7%比 83.6%,P=0.114)。两组并发症均少见且相似,而 URS 组输尿管损伤的发生率高于 SWL 组(1.4%比 0%,P=0.011)。SWL 组的住院时间明显更短(1 天比 2 天,P<0.001),成本显著更低(2000 元比 25053 元,P<0.001)。

结论

本前瞻性 PSM 队列研究表明,对于有或无放射不透性的输尿管上段结石患者,超声引导下 SWL 采用早期二次治疗方案在有效性方面与 URS 相当,但具有更好的安全性和更低的成本。这些结果将有助于治疗输尿管上段结石的决策。

相似文献

1
Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.在 COVID-19 大流行期间,比较冲击波碎石术和输尿管镜取石术治疗近端输尿管结石的效果。
World J Urol. 2023 Mar;41(3):797-803. doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04307-0. Epub 2023 Feb 2.
2
Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in patients with non-lower pole kidney stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.在 COVID-19 大流行期间,比较非下极肾结石患者体外冲击波碎石术与软性输尿管镜碎石术的前瞻性研究。
Urolithiasis. 2023 Feb 16;51(1):38. doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01412-y.
3
Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in distal ureteral stones.体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜碎石术治疗输尿管下段结石的前瞻性比较。
Urolithiasis. 2023 Jun 5;51(1):86. doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01460-4.
4
Comparison of ureteroscopy (URS) complementary treatment after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy failure with primary URS lithotripsy with holmium laser treatment for proximal ureteral stones larger than10mm.比较体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)失败后输尿管镜检查(URS)的补充治疗与钬激光治疗原发性 URS 碎石术治疗大于 10mm 的输尿管上段结石。
BMC Urol. 2021 Sep 13;21(1):126. doi: 10.1186/s12894-021-00892-7.
5
Comparison of semirigid ureteroscopy, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy for initial treatment of 11-20 mm proximal ureteral stones.比较半刚性输尿管镜、软性输尿管镜和冲击波碎石术治疗 11-20mm 近端输尿管结石的初始治疗效果。
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020 Apr 6;92(1):39-44. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2020.1.39.
6
A prospective randomized comparison between shockwave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones <2 cm: a single center experience.冲击波碎石术与半硬性输尿管镜治疗小于2厘米上段输尿管结石的前瞻性随机对照研究:单中心经验
J Endourol. 2015 Jan;29(1):47-51. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0493.
7
Cost-effectiveness comparison of ureteral calculi treated with ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy versus shockwave lithotripsy.输尿管镜激光碎石术与冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管结石的成本效益比较
World J Urol. 2017 Jan;35(1):161-166. doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1842-2. Epub 2016 May 5.
8
A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi.一项比较冲击波碎石术和半刚性输尿管镜治疗输尿管上段结石的前瞻性随机研究。
Urology. 2009 Dec;74(6):1216-21. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.076. Epub 2009 Oct 7.
9
Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.输尿管镜检查治疗结石比体外冲击波碎石术更具成本效益:系统评价和荟萃分析。
World J Urol. 2018 Nov;36(11):1783-1793. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9. Epub 2018 May 5.
10
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopy for the removal of small distal ureteral stones.体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜检查治疗远端输尿管小结石的比较
Urol Int. 2004;73(3):238-43. doi: 10.1159/000080834.

引用本文的文献

1
The effectiveness and safety between prone position and supine position for ultrasound guided shock wave lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones: a multi-center prospective propensity score-matching study.超声引导下俯卧位与仰卧位治疗近端输尿管结石冲击波碎石术的有效性和安全性:一项多中心前瞻性倾向评分匹配研究。
World J Urol. 2024 Dec 25;43(1):46. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05383-6.

本文引用的文献

1
The Impact of Early COVID-19 Pandemic on the Presentation and Management of Urinary Calculi Across the Globe: A Systematic Review.早期新冠疫情对全球尿石症诊治的影响:一项系统综述
J Endourol. 2022 Sep;36(9):1255-1264. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0167. Epub 2022 May 23.
2
Value of early second session shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of upper ureteric stones compared to laser ureteroscopy.早期二次冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石与激光输尿管镜比较的价值。
World J Urol. 2021 Aug;39(8):3089-3093. doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03560-x. Epub 2021 Jan 20.
3
Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China.中国武汉地区 2019 年新型冠状病毒感染患者的临床特征。
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5. Epub 2020 Jan 24.
4
Optimisation of shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review of technical aspects to improve outcomes.冲击波碎石术的优化:对改善治疗效果的技术方面的系统评价
Transl Androl Urol. 2019 Sep;8(Suppl 4):S389-S397. doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.06.07.
5
Can intervals in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy sessions affect success in the treatment of upper ureteral stones?体外冲击波碎石术治疗期间的间隔时间会影响上输尿管结石的治疗成功率吗?
Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2018 Dec;13(4):507-511. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2018.75873. Epub 2018 May 21.
6
Comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter: Efficacy, pain and complications.电磁式与液电式碎石机的比较:疗效、疼痛及并发症
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2018 Sep 30;90(3):169-171. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2018.3.169.
7
TISU: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, as first treatment option, compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment, for ureteric stones: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.TISU:体外冲击波碎石术作为输尿管结石的首选治疗方案与直接进行输尿管镜治疗的比较:一项随机对照试验的研究方案
Trials. 2018 May 22;19(1):286. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2652-1.
8
Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience.输尿管镜气压弹道碎石术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的比较:单中心经验
Turk J Urol. 2018 May;44(3):221-227. doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.41848. Epub 2018 May 1.
9
What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review.输尿管镜术与体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的利弊:系统评价。
Eur Urol. 2017 Nov;72(5):772-786. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.016. Epub 2017 Apr 26.
10
Epidemiology of stone disease across the world.全球结石病的流行病学。
World J Urol. 2017 Sep;35(9):1301-1320. doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6. Epub 2017 Feb 17.