Hofbauer J, Höbarth K, Marberger M
Department of Urology, University of Vienna Medical School, Austria.
J Urol. 1995 Mar;153(3 Pt 1):623-5. doi: 10.1097/00005392-199503000-00019.
The efficacy and safety of electrohydraulic versus pneumatic lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones were evaluated in a prospective, randomized study. A total of 72 patients with stones not capable of passing spontaneously and unsuitable for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was randomized to either method (34 to electrohydraulic lithotripsy and 38 to pneumatic lithotripsy). While both techniques were equivalent in efficacy (85.3% for electrohydraulic and 89.5% for pneumatic lithotripsy), the perforation rates were significantly different (17.6 versus 2.6%, respectively). Although the long-term results revealed no significant differences, pneumatic lithotripsy, as the markedly safer and easier to handle technique, is currently the method of choice at our stone center for ureteral calculi requiring treatment but not suitable for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
在一项前瞻性随机研究中,评估了液电碎石术与气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管结石的疗效和安全性。共有72例不能自行排出且不适合体外冲击波碎石术的结石患者被随机分为两种治疗方法(34例接受液电碎石术,38例接受气压弹道碎石术)。虽然两种技术在疗效上相当(液电碎石术为85.3%,气压弹道碎石术为89.5%),但穿孔率有显著差异(分别为17.6%和2.6%)。尽管长期结果显示无显著差异,但气压弹道碎石术作为明显更安全且易于操作的技术,目前是我们结石中心治疗需要治疗但不适合体外冲击波碎石术的输尿管结石的首选方法。