• 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

既往体外冲击波碎石术失败对输尿管软镜治疗上尿路结石疗效的影响:前瞻性对照研究。

Impact of previously failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on ureterorenoscopy outcomes in upper urinary tract stones: a prospective comparative study.

机构信息

Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt.

出版信息

World J Urol. 2024 Jul 10;42(1):392. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05073-3.

DOI:10.1007/s00345-024-05073-3
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We sought to prospectively evaluate the impact of previously failed SWL on subsequent URS outcomes in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2021 and May 2023, one hundred thirty-six patients with proximal ureteral stones < 1.5 cm and renal stones < 2.5 cm who were candidates for URS were prospectively assigned to a non-SWL group, which included patients without a history of failed SWL before URS, and a post-SWL group, which included patients with a history of failed SWL before URS. The success rate was the primary outcome. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The stone-free rate was 83.3% in the post-SWL group versus 81.3% in the non-SWL group, and 8.3% in the post-SWL group versus 9.4% in the non-SWL group had clinically insignificant residual fragments. There was no significant difference in the stone-free rate or success rate between the groups. No significant differences in intraoperative fluoroscopy time, operative time, intraoperative stone appearance, perioperative complications, or the presence of embedded fragments in the ureteral mucosa were detected between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients who underwent primary URS, patients who underwent salvage URS for upper urinary tract stones had similar stone-free rates, success rates, operative times, fluoroscopy times, and complication rates without any significant differences.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在前瞻性评估既往体外冲击波碎石术(SWL)失败对治疗上尿路结石行输尿管镜碎石术(URS)后结局的影响。

材料与方法

2021 年 5 月至 2023 年 5 月,136 例拟行 URS 的近端输尿管结石<1.5 cm 和肾结石<2.5 cm 患者被前瞻性分配至非 SWL 组(无 URS 前 SWL 失败史的患者)和 post-SWL 组(URS 前有 SWL 失败史的患者)。主要结局为手术成功率。比较两组患者的围手术期数据。

结果

post-SWL 组的结石清除率为 83.3%,non-SWL 组为 81.3%,post-SWL 组有 8.3%的患者存在临床无意义的残石碎片,non-SWL 组为 9.4%。两组的结石清除率或成功率无显著差异。两组术中透视时间、手术时间、术中结石外观、围手术期并发症或输尿管黏膜内嵌入碎片的存在无显著差异。

结论

与初次行 URS 的患者相比,因上尿路结石行挽救性 URS 的患者在结石清除率、成功率、手术时间、透视时间和并发症发生率方面无显著差异。

相似文献

1
Impact of previously failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on ureterorenoscopy outcomes in upper urinary tract stones: a prospective comparative study.既往体外冲击波碎石术失败对输尿管软镜治疗上尿路结石疗效的影响:前瞻性对照研究。
World J Urol. 2024 Jul 10;42(1):392. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05073-3.
2
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.
3
Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Flexible Ureteroscopy for the Management of Upper Tract Urinary Stones in Children.体外冲击波碎石术与软性输尿管镜术治疗儿童上尿路结石的对比研究
J Endourol. 2017 Jan;31(1):1-6. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0313.
4
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for management of pediatric nephrolithiasis in upper urinary tract stones: multi-institutional outcomes of efficacy and morbidity.体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜碎石术治疗上尿路结石儿童肾结石:多机构疗效和并发症的结果。
J Pediatr Urol. 2019 Oct;15(5):516.e1-516.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.06.006. Epub 2019 Jun 21.
5
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.
6
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.
7
Intracorporeal or extracorporeal lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi? Effect of stone size and multiplicity on success rates.体内或体外冲击波碎石术治疗远端输尿管结石?结石大小和数量对成功率的影响。
J Endourol. 1998 Aug;12(4):307-12. doi: 10.1089/end.1998.12.307.
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
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.
10
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.

本文引用的文献

1
Does prior failed shock-wave lithotripsy impact outcomes of ureterorenoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.先前的体外冲击波碎石术失败是否会影响输尿管镜碎石术的结果?系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022 Apr;26(7):2501-2510. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202204_28486.
2
Guideline of the guidelines: urolithiasis.指南指南:尿石症。
Curr Opin Urol. 2021 Mar 1;31(2):125-129. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000855.
3
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Renal Stones Less Than 2 cm in Maximum Diameter. Reply.
比较经皮肾镜取石术、逆行肾内手术和冲击波碎石术治疗最大直径小于2cm的下极肾结石的系统评价和Meta分析。回复
J Urol. 2021 Jun;205(6):1845. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001508. Epub 2020 Nov 12.
4
Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature.肾盂肾盏解剖结构在逆行性肾内手术(RIRS)治疗下极结石结局中的作用:文献系统回顾的结果。
Urolithiasis. 2020 Jun;48(3):263-270. doi: 10.1007/s00240-019-01150-0. Epub 2019 Aug 1.
5
The role of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the future of stone management.体外冲击波碎石术在结石管理中的未来作用。
Curr Opin Urol. 2019 Mar;29(2):96-102. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000584.
6
Efficacy of commercialised extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy service: a review of 589 renal stones.商业化体外冲击波碎石术服务的疗效:对589例肾结石的回顾
BMC Urol. 2017 Jul 27;17(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0249-8.
7
Effect of shock wave number on renal oxidative stress and inflammation.冲击波数量对肾脏氧化应激和炎症的影响。
BJU Int. 2011 Jan;107(2):318-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09311.x.
8
Retrograde intrarenal surgery as second-line therapy yields a lower success rate.逆行性肾内手术作为二线治疗的成功率较低。
J Endourol. 2006 Aug;20(8):556-9. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.20.556.