• 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

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。

Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in distal ureteral stones.

机构信息

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

Business School Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, M15 6BH, UK.

出版信息

Urolithiasis. 2023 Jun 5;51(1):86. doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01460-4.

DOI:10.1007/s00240-023-01460-4
PMID:37272997
Abstract

The optimal treatment modality of distal ureteral stones is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of early second shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) sessions versus ureterorenoscopy (URS) in patients with distal ureteral stones. This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent SWL or URS for distal ureteral stones were enrolled in this study. The stone-free rate (SFR), secondary treatment rate, complications, and costs were recorded. Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was also performed. A total of 1023 patients were included, of whom 68.4% (700) were treated with SWL and 31.6% (323) with URS. Based on PSM, SWL had an equivalent SFR (87.4% vs. 84.9%, P = 0.325) at one month after SWL and secondary treatment rate (10.7% vs.10.8%, P = 0.958) when compared with URS. Complications were rare and comparable between the SWL and URS groups (6.0% vs. 5.9%, P > 0.05), while the incidence of ureteral injuries (i.e., perforations) was higher in the URS group compared with the SWL group (1.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.019). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs. 2 days, P < 0.001) and the costs considerably less (2000 RMB vs. 25,030 RMB; P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the URS group. This prospective study demonstrated that early second SWL sessions had equivalent efficacy in addition to reduced complication rates and costs compared with URS in patients with distal ureteral stones. Our findings may help guide clinical decision making.

摘要

对于远端输尿管结石的最佳治疗方式存在争议。因此,我们进行了一项前瞻性研究,以评估早期行第二次体外冲击波碎石术(SWL)与输尿管镜碎石术(URS)治疗远端输尿管结石患者的疗效、安全性和成本。这项前瞻性研究于 2020 年 6 月至 2022 年 4 月在一家三级医院进行。纳入接受 SWL 或 URS 治疗的远端输尿管结石患者。记录结石清除率(SFR)、二次治疗率、并发症和成本。还进行了倾向评分匹配(PSM)分析。共纳入 1023 例患者,其中 68.4%(700 例)接受 SWL 治疗,31.6%(323 例)接受 URS 治疗。根据 PSM,SWL 在 SWL 后 1 个月的 SFR(87.4%比 84.9%,P=0.325)和二次治疗率(10.7%比 10.8%,P=0.958)与 URS 相当。并发症少见,SWL 和 URS 组之间无差异(6.0%比 5.9%,P>0.05),但 URS 组输尿管损伤(即穿孔)的发生率高于 SWL 组(1.3%比 0%,P=0.019)。SWL 组的住院时间明显更短(1 天比 2 天,P<0.001),成本明显更低(2000 人民币比 25030 人民币;P<0.001)。这项前瞻性研究表明,对于远端输尿管结石患者,早期行第二次 SWL 治疗与 URS 相比,疗效相当,并发症发生率和成本更低。我们的研究结果可能有助于指导临床决策。

相似文献

1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
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
Treatment for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study.中段及下段输尿管结石的治疗:体外冲击波碎石术还是输尿管镜检查?一项多中心研究的结果
J Endourol. 1999 Dec;13(10):727-33. doi: 10.1089/end.1999.13.727.
6
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.
7
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.
8
Total Surface Area Influences Stone Free Outcomes in Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Distal Ureteral Calculi.总表面积影响冲击波碎石术治疗远端输尿管结石的无石结局。
J Endourol. 2019 Aug;33(8):661-666. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0120. Epub 2019 Apr 13.
9
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.
10
Impact of previous SWL on ureterorenoscopy outcomes and optimal timing for ureterorenoscopy after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones.体外冲击波碎石术(SWL)后对输尿管镜取石术(ureterorenoscopy)结果的影响以及 SWL 失败后治疗上段输尿管结石的最佳输尿管镜取石术时机。
World J Urol. 2020 Mar;38(3):769-774. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02809-4. Epub 2019 May 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Ureteral wall thickness at the ureterovesical junction as a significant factor in predicting medical expulsive therapy of ureterovesical junction stones.输尿管膀胱连接处的输尿管壁厚度是预测输尿管膀胱连接处结石药物排石治疗效果的重要因素。
BMC Urol. 2025 Aug 23;25(1):215. doi: 10.1186/s12894-025-01890-9.
2
The association between renal pelvis urine density and the risk of severe infectious complications in patient with symptom-free hydronephrosis after shock wave lithotripsy: a multi-center prospective study.冲击波碎石术后无症状性肾积水患者肾盂尿液密度与严重感染性并发症风险的关系:一项多中心前瞻性研究。
Urolithiasis. 2024 Apr 29;52(1):72. doi: 10.1007/s00240-024-01572-5.

本文引用的文献

1
Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopic Treatment as Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU): A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority Trial.冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜治疗输尿管结石(TISU):一项多中心随机对照非劣效性试验。
Eur Urol. 2021 Jul;80(1):46-54. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.02.044. Epub 2021 Mar 31.
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
Transient stent placement versus tubeless procedure after ureteroscopy retrograde surgery stone extraction (Fast Track Stent study 2): A randomized prospective evaluation.
输尿管镜逆行取石术后短暂支架置入与无管化处理的前瞻性随机对照研究(Fast Track Stent 研究 2)
Int J Urol. 2020 Sep;27(9):749-754. doi: 10.1111/iju.14291. Epub 2020 Jul 6.
4
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy: Current Perspectives and Future Directions.体外冲击波疗法:当前观点与未来方向
Curr Urol Rep. 2017 Apr;18(4):25. doi: 10.1007/s11934-017-0672-0.
5
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.
6
Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I.结石的外科治疗:美国泌尿外科学会/腔内泌尿外科学会指南,第一部分。
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1153-60. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090. Epub 2016 May 27.
7
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy as first-line therapy for patients with single, distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study.体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜取石术治疗单一、远端输尿管结石患者的一线治疗:一项前瞻性随机研究。
BJU Int. 2010 Dec;106(11):1748-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09338.x.
8
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteric calculi: efficacy and patient satisfaction.体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜检查治疗输尿管下段结石:疗效及患者满意度
Int Braz J Urol. 2006 Nov-Dec;32(6):656-64; discussion 664-7. doi: 10.1590/s1677-55382006000600006.
9
Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective study.冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜检查治疗输尿管下段结石的前瞻性研究
Urol Res. 2006 Jun;34(3):190-2. doi: 10.1007/s00240-006-0041-9. Epub 2006 Jan 31.
10
Prospective randomized comparative study of the effectiveness and safety of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors.电液压与电磁体外冲击波碎石机有效性及安全性的前瞻性随机对照研究
J Urol. 2003 Aug;170(2 Pt 1):389-92. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000075080.58359.46.