• 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

相似文献

1
Erector spinae plane block prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy decreases fluoroscopy time and promise a comfortable procedure for renal stones: A prospective randomized study.体外冲击波碎石术前行竖脊肌平面阻滞可减少透视时间,并为肾结石患者带来舒适的手术过程:一项前瞻性随机研究。
2
The analgesic efficacy of ultrasound guided unilateral transversus abdominis plane block in the pain management of shock wave lithotripsy.
Arch Esp Urol. 2019 Nov;72(9):933-938.
3
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of large pediatric renal pelvic stone burden more than 2 cm.体外冲击波碎石术治疗 2cm 以上的儿童肾盂大结石负担。
J Pediatr Urol. 2023 Oct;19(5):561.e1-561.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2023.06.017. Epub 2023 Jun 20.
4
Effect of JJ stent on outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment of moderate sized renal pelvic stones: A randomized prospective study.双J管对中等大小肾盂结石体外冲击波碎石治疗效果的影响:一项随机前瞻性研究。
Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2019 Oct;43(8):425-430. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.03.009. Epub 2019 Jun 6.
5
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.
6
Intracutaneous sterile water injection for pain relief during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: comparison with diclofenac sodium.皮内注射无菌水在体外冲击波碎石术中缓解疼痛:与双氯芬酸钠的比较。
Urolithiasis. 2020 Apr;48(2):103-108. doi: 10.1007/s00240-019-01147-9. Epub 2019 Jul 5.
7
Can we predict the ancillary treatments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal and upper ureteral stones?我们能否预测体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾结石和输尿管上段结石后的辅助治疗?
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022 Dec 27;94(4):439-442. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2022.4.439.
8
Importance of precise imaging for stone identification during shockwave lithotripsy: a critical evaluation of "OptiVision" as a post-processing radiography imaging modality.精确成像在冲击波碎石术中对结石识别的重要性:“OptiVision”后处理射线照相成像方式的批判性评价。
Urolithiasis. 2022 Feb;50(1):87-93. doi: 10.1007/s00240-021-01284-0. Epub 2021 Sep 15.
9
Are the current nomograms sufficient to predict shockwave lithotripsy outcomes?当前的列线图是否足以预测体外冲击波碎石术的结果?
Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2022 Oct;46(8):473-480. doi: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2021.12.012. Epub 2022 Jul 5.
10
Comparison of shockwave lithotripsy and microperc for treatment of kidney stones in children.比较冲击波碎石术和微经皮肾镜取石术治疗儿童肾结石。
J Endourol. 2013 Sep;27(9):1141-6. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0066. Epub 2013 Aug 9.

体外冲击波碎石术前行竖脊肌平面阻滞可减少透视时间,并为肾结石患者带来舒适的手术过程:一项前瞻性随机研究。

Erector spinae plane block prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy decreases fluoroscopy time and promise a comfortable procedure for renal stones: A prospective randomized study.

作者信息

Karaaslan M, Olcucuoglu E, Kurtbeyoglu S, Tonyali S, Yilmaz M, Odabas O

机构信息

Servicio de Urología, Hospital Estatal de Bingol, Bingol, Turkey.

Servicio de Urología, Universidad de Ciencias de la Salud, Hospital de la Ciudad de Ankara, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2023 Nov;47(9):566-572. doi: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2023.04.001. Epub 2023 Apr 20.

DOI:10.1016/j.acuroe.2023.04.001
PMID:37084807
Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and intramuscular (i.m.) diclofenac sodium in regard to pain management and impact on stone-free status in patients undergoing SWL.

PATIENTS AND MATERIALS

The study included patients who underwent SWL for kidney stones in our institution. The patients were randomly assigned to the ESPB (Group 1: n = 31) and i.m. 75 mg diclofenac sodium (Group 2: n = 30) groups. The demographic data of the patients, fluoroscopy time during SWL, number of need of targeting, total shocks given, voltage, stone free rates (SFR), analgesy method, number of SWL sessions, VAS score, stone location, maximum stone size, stone volume and Hounsfield unit (HU) were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were included the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups according to stone size, volume and density, SWL duration, total shocks given, voltage, BMI, stone-free status and stone location. Fluoroscopy time and number of need for stone targeting were significantly lower in group 1 than group 2 (p = 0.002, p = 0.021, respectively). The VAS score was significantly lower for group 1 compared to group 2 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that the VAS score was lower in the ESPB group compared to i.m. diclofenac sodium group and although it was not statistically significant, we achieved a higher rate of stone-free status in the first session in ESPB group. Most importantly, the patients in the ESPB group were exposed to less fluoroscopy and radiation.

摘要

介绍和目的

比较竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)和肌内注射(IM)双氯芬酸钠在接受体外冲击波碎石术(SWL)的患者中在疼痛管理和对无石状态的影响方面的效果。

患者和材料

该研究纳入了在我院接受 SWL 治疗肾结石的患者。患者被随机分配到 ESPB(第 1 组:n=31)和 IM 75mg 双氯芬酸钠(第 2 组:n=30)组。记录患者的人口统计学数据、SWL 期间的透视时间、靶向需要的次数、总冲击波数、电压、无石率(SFR)、镇痛方法、SWL 次数、视觉模拟评分(VAS)、结石位置、最大结石大小、结石体积和亨氏单位(HU)。

结果

共有 61 例患者纳入研究。两组之间的结石大小、体积和密度、SWL 持续时间、总冲击波数、电压、BMI、无石状态和结石位置无统计学差异。第 1 组的透视时间和靶向结石需要的次数明显低于第 2 组(p=0.002,p=0.021)。第 1 组的 VAS 评分明显低于第 2 组(p<0.001)。

结论

我们观察到 ESPB 组的 VAS 评分低于 IM 双氯芬酸钠组,尽管无统计学意义,但 ESPB 组在第一次治疗中达到了更高的无石状态率。最重要的是,ESPB 组的患者接受的透视和辐射较少。