• 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

埃及超微经皮肾镜取石术与置入支架体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾结石的对比研究

Comparative study between ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus stented extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of renal stones in Egypt.

作者信息

Radwan Ahmed Ibrahim, Saif Ahmed Mohsen Ibrahim, Samir Younan Ramsis, Maged Wael Ali, Gamal Mohamed A

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

出版信息

Arab J Urol. 2023 May 16;21(4):273-279. doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2023.2211897. eCollection 2023.

DOI:10.1080/2090598X.2023.2211897
PMID:38178944
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10763587/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to compare results, safety and outcome of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus stented shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the management of renal calculi sized 10-20 mm.

METHODS

This study was conducted at Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University. After meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, 90 patients were randomized to either ultra-mini-PCNL group or stented SWL group through the closed-envelope technique, with 45 patients in each group. Patient data were collected preoperatively, immediately postoperatively and 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively assessing operative time, hospital stay, complications including haematuria, fever, the need for blood transfusion, residual stones and the need for retreatment.

RESULTS

Stone-free rate (SFR) was higher in the ultra-mini-PCNL group compared to the stented SWL group, with no statistically significant difference with -value = 0.316. As for the need for retreatment, it was slightly higher in the stented SWL group compared to the ultra-mini-PCNL group, yet this difference was statistically insignificant with -value = 0.681.We found no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding post-operative complications including fever, haematuria and need for blood transfusion, respectively.Operative time and hospital stay were significantly higher in the ultra-mini-PCNL group compared to the stented SWL group with -value < 0.001 for both.

CONCLUSION

Both stented SWL and ultra-mini-PCNL are good treatment choices for renal stones sized less than 2 cm with low complication rates. Stone size indices were significant predictor for the need for retreatment. Further studies to compare SFR based on stone size in both interventions are needed.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较超微经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)与置入支架的冲击波碎石术(SWL)治疗直径10 - 20毫米肾结石的效果、安全性及预后。

方法

本研究在艾因夏姆斯大学医学院泌尿外科进行。符合纳入和排除标准后,90例患者通过封闭信封技术随机分为超微PCNL组或置入支架的SWL组,每组45例。术前、术后即刻以及术后2周和4周收集患者数据,评估手术时间、住院时间、并发症,包括血尿、发热、输血需求、残余结石及再次治疗需求。

结果

超微PCNL组的结石清除率(SFR)高于置入支架的SWL组,差异无统计学意义(P值 = 0.316)。至于再次治疗需求,置入支架的SWL组略高于超微PCNL组,但差异无统计学意义(P值 = 0.681)。我们发现两组在术后并发症(分别为发热、血尿和输血需求)方面无统计学显著差异。超微PCNL组的手术时间和住院时间显著长于置入支架的SWL组,两者P值均< 0.001。

结论

置入支架的SWL和超微PCNL都是治疗直径小于2厘米肾结石且并发症发生率低的良好选择。结石大小指数是再次治疗需求的重要预测因素。需要进一步研究比较两种干预措施基于结石大小的SFR。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7a64/10763587/2b97a07f0f58/TAJU_A_2211897_F0002_OC.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7a64/10763587/2498088b3a5c/TAJU_A_2211897_F0001_OC.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7a64/10763587/2b97a07f0f58/TAJU_A_2211897_F0002_OC.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7a64/10763587/2498088b3a5c/TAJU_A_2211897_F0001_OC.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7a64/10763587/2b97a07f0f58/TAJU_A_2211897_F0002_OC.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparative study between ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus stented extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of renal stones in Egypt.埃及超微经皮肾镜取石术与置入支架体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾结石的对比研究
Arab J Urol. 2023 May 16;21(4):273-279. doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2023.2211897. eCollection 2023.
2
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.
3
Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultra-Mini PCNL, Flexible Ureteroscopy, and Shock Wave Lithotripsy on the Treatment of 1-2 cm Lower Pole Renal Calculi.超微经皮肾镜取石术、软性输尿管镜检查术和冲击波碎石术治疗1-2cm下极肾结石的疗效比较
Urol Int. 2019;102(2):153-159. doi: 10.1159/000493508. Epub 2018 Oct 23.
4
Cost-effectiveness of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, Standard and Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the Management of 1-2cm Renal Stones.逆行性肾内手术、标准及迷你经皮肾镜取石术以及冲击波碎石术治疗1-2厘米肾结石的成本效益分析
Urology. 2021 Oct;156:71-77. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.030. Epub 2021 Jul 15.
5
Which is the best treatment of pediatric upper urinary tract stones among extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review.体外冲击波碎石术、经皮肾镜取石术和逆行性肾内手术治疗小儿上尿路结石的最佳治疗方法:系统评价。
BMC Urol. 2019 Oct 23;19(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0520-2.
6
Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a safe alternative to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for high-density, renal stones: a prospective, randomised trial.经皮肾镜碎石术是治疗高密度肾结石的一种安全替代体外冲击波碎石术的方法:一项前瞻性、随机试验。
BJU Int. 2021 Dec;128(6):744-751. doi: 10.1111/bju.15493. Epub 2021 Jun 13.
7
Endourologic Management (PCNL, URS, SWL) of Stones in Solitary Kidney: A Systematic Review from European Association of Urologists Young Academic Urologists and Uro-Technology Groups.经皮肾镜取石术、输尿管镜碎石取石术、体外冲击波碎石术治疗孤立肾结石的腔内泌尿外科管理:欧洲泌尿外科学会青年学者泌尿外科学组和泌尿技术组的系统评价。
J Endourol. 2020 Jan;34(1):7-17. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0455. Epub 2019 Sep 26.
8
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for high-density moderate-sized renal stones: A prospective randomized study.经皮肾镜取石术与冲击波碎石术治疗高密度中等大小肾结石的前瞻性随机研究
Urol Ann. 2019 Oct-Dec;11(4):426-431. doi: 10.4103/UA.UA_63_19.
9
Efficacy and safety of surgical treatment for 1-2 cm sized lower pole of renal stone: network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.1-2厘米大小的肾下盏结石手术治疗的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的网状Meta分析
Urolithiasis. 2023 May 15;51(1):82. doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01454-2.
10
Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.经皮肾镜取石术、逆行性肾内手术及体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾结石的有效性:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Dec 30;57(1):26. doi: 10.3390/medicina57010026.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of factors affecting the efficacy and stone clearance rate of super-mini PCNL (SMP) versus standard PCNL (sPCNL) in the treatment of different sizes of renal stones.比较超微通道经皮肾镜取石术(SMP)与标准经皮肾镜取石术(sPCNL)治疗不同大小肾结石时影响疗效及结石清除率的因素分析。
Int Urol Nephrol. 2025 Jul 9. doi: 10.1007/s11255-025-04602-2.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison of Ultra-Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from the KSER Update Series.超微经皮肾镜取石术与逆行肾内手术治疗肾结石的比较:KSER更新系列的系统评价和荟萃分析
J Clin Med. 2022 Mar 10;11(6):1529. doi: 10.3390/jcm11061529.
2
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.比较微创经皮肾镜取石术和标准经皮肾镜取石术治疗>2cm 肾结石:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int Braz J Urol. 2022 Jul-Aug;48(4):637-648. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0347.
3
Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
经皮肾镜取石术、逆行性肾内手术及体外冲击波碎石术治疗肾结石的有效性:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Dec 30;57(1):26. doi: 10.3390/medicina57010026.
4
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.冲击波碎石术、逆行肾内手术、经皮肾镜取石术及微创经皮肾镜取石术治疗下极肾结石的疗效与安全性比较:一项系统评价和网状Meta分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Mar;99(10):e19403. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019403.
5
Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultra-Mini PCNL, Flexible Ureteroscopy, and Shock Wave Lithotripsy on the Treatment of 1-2 cm Lower Pole Renal Calculi.超微经皮肾镜取石术、软性输尿管镜检查术和冲击波碎石术治疗1-2cm下极肾结石的疗效比较
Urol Int. 2019;102(2):153-159. doi: 10.1159/000493508. Epub 2018 Oct 23.
6
A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones.SWL、PCNL 和 RIRS 治疗 2cm 以下下盏结石的前瞻性随机对照研究:多中心经验:对下极结石治疗选择的更好理解。
World J Urol. 2017 Dec;35(12):1967-1975. doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2084-7. Epub 2017 Sep 5.
7
'Mini, ultra, micro' - nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques.“迷你、超、微”——这些新型微创经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)技术的命名及成本
Ther Adv Urol. 2016 Apr;8(2):142-6. doi: 10.1177/1756287215617674. Epub 2015 Nov 26.
8
Metabolic evaluation and recurrence prevention for urinary stone patients: EAU guidelines.代谢评估和预防尿路结石患者复发:EAU 指南。
Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):750-63. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.029. Epub 2014 Nov 20.
9
A novel technique of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: introduction and an initial experience for treatment of upper urinary calculi less than 2 cm.一种新型的超微经皮肾镜取石术:介绍及初步用于治疗 2cm 以下上尿路结石的经验。
Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:490793. doi: 10.1155/2013/490793. Epub 2013 Jul 24.
10
The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients.《内镜泌尿外科协会经皮肾镜取石术全球研究临床研究办公室:5803 例患者的适应证、并发症和结局》。
J Endourol. 2011 Jan;25(1):11-7. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0424.