• 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

体外冲击波碎石术治疗近端输尿管梗阻性结石。一项比较原位、支架旁路及结石下方置管并冲洗策略的前瞻性随机研究。

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructed proximal ureteral stones. A prospective randomized study comparing in situ, stent bypass and below stone catheter with irrigation strategies.

作者信息

Chang S C, Kuo H C, Hsu T

机构信息

Department of Urology, Tz'u-Chi General Hospital, Hua-Lien, Taiwan/ROC.

出版信息

Eur Urol. 1993;24(2):177-84.

PMID:8375437
Abstract

In an attempt to assess the usefulness of a ureteral stent in facilitating disintegration of obstructed proximal ureteral stone with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), a prospective randomized study on 120 patients with ultrasonic evidence of hydronephrosis whose stone sizes were greater than 1.0 x 0.6 cm on KUB film and located above the level of L5 were allocated into three distinct treatment strategies: group 1: in situ without stone manipulation; group 2: bypass stones with stent, and group 3: placement of a catheter below stone with continuous saline irrigation. Of 77 patients, 26, 27 and 24 in each group, followed up for a period of 6 months with sufficient data for analysis, the stone-free rates were 76.9, 59.3 and 62.5%, respectively. The average number of shock waves delivered to accomplish a stone-free state were 3,245, 3,250 and 3,880 for individual groups and the comparisons among them were statistically insignificant (p's > 0.1). ESWL retreatment was common, being 33.3, 29.4 and 43.8%, respectively. Hydronephrosis has a major impact on the outcome of ESWL treatment, as more stone-free cases were found in the mildly hydronephrotic category than in the severer counterparts. About 90% of cases who finally were stone-free, passed all their stone fragments within 28 days. Ancillary procedures were needed in 13 (16.9%), 7 received ureterolithotomy, whilst 6 were removed of their stones by ureteroscopy.

摘要

为了评估输尿管支架在促进体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗近端输尿管梗阻性结石碎裂中的作用,对120例有超声证实肾积水、KUB片显示结石大小大于1.0×0.6 cm且位于L5水平以上的患者进行了一项前瞻性随机研究,将其分为三种不同的治疗策略:第1组:原位不进行结石处理;第2组:用支架绕过结石;第3组:在结石下方放置导管并持续盐水冲洗。77例患者(每组分别为26、27和24例)随访6个月,有足够的数据进行分析,结石清除率分别为76.9%、59.3%和62.5%。各组为达到结石清除状态所施加的平均冲击波次数分别为3245次、3250次和3880次,组间比较无统计学意义(p值>0.1)。ESWL再次治疗很常见,分别为33.3%、29.4%和43.8%。肾积水对ESWL治疗结果有重大影响,因为轻度肾积水患者中结石清除的病例比重度肾积水患者更多。最终结石清除的病例中,约90%在28天内排出了所有结石碎片。13例(16.9%)需要辅助程序,7例行输尿管切开取石术,6例通过输尿管镜取石。

相似文献

1
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for obstructed proximal ureteral stones. A prospective randomized study comparing in situ, stent bypass and below stone catheter with irrigation strategies.体外冲击波碎石术治疗近端输尿管梗阻性结石。一项比较原位、支架旁路及结石下方置管并冲洗策略的前瞻性随机研究。
Eur Urol. 1993;24(2):177-84.
2
Is pre-shock wave lithotripsy stenting necessary for ureteral stones with moderate or severe hydronephrosis?对于伴有中度或重度肾积水的输尿管结石,冲击波碎石术前是否需要置入支架?
J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):2059-62; discussion 2062. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.022.
3
[Utility of ureteral stent for stone street after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy].[输尿管支架在体外冲击波碎石术后结石长街中的应用]
Hinyokika Kiyo. 2005 May;51(5):309-14; dicussion 314.
4
Does degree of hydronephrosis affect success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones?肾积水程度会影响体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管下段结石的成功率吗?
Urology. 2007 Mar;69(3):431-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.11.010.
5
A randomized outcomes trial of ureteral stents for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of solitary kidney or proximal ureteral stones.输尿管支架用于孤立肾或近端输尿管结石体外冲击波碎石术的随机结果试验。
J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):1981-3.
6
Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of middle ureteral stones: are ureteral stents necessary?输尿管中段结石的体外冲击波碎石术:是否需要放置输尿管支架?
Urology. 1995 Nov;46(5):649-52. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80294-5.
7
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized comparison between stented and non-stented techniques.体外冲击波碎石术治疗嵌顿性上段输尿管结石:支架与非支架技术的前瞻性随机比较。
Urology. 2010 Jan;75(1):45-50. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.071. Epub 2009 Oct 7.
8
Prognostic factors for extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of ureteric stones--a multivariate analysis study.输尿管结石体外冲击波碎石术的预后因素——一项多变量分析研究
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003;37(5):413-8. doi: 10.1080/00365590310006255.
9
A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi.一项比较冲击波碎石术和半刚性输尿管镜治疗输尿管上段结石的前瞻性随机研究。
Urology. 2009 Dec;74(6):1216-21. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.076. Epub 2009 Oct 7.
10
Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium:YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.近端输尿管结石的治疗:钬激光输尿管碎石术与体外冲击波碎石术的对比
J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):1972-6.

引用本文的文献

1
Double J stent reduces the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lumbar ureteral stones.双J管降低体外冲击波碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的疗效。
Cent European J Urol. 2013;66(3):309-13. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2013.03.art14. Epub 2013 Nov 18.
2
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as a first-line therapy for ureteral calculi with impaired renal function due to hydronephrosis.
Surg Endosc. 2009 Jul;23(7):1674. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0387-5. Epub 2009 Apr 3.
3
Impact of hydronephrosis on treatment outcome of solitary proximal ureteral stone after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.肾积水对体外冲击波碎石术后孤立性近端输尿管结石治疗效果的影响。
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2008 Oct;24(10):507-13. doi: 10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70009-9.
4
Comparison of success rates and financial cost of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy in situ and after manipulation for proximal ureteral stones.原位体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管上段结石手法治疗后成功率及费用的比较
Urol Res. 2003 Aug;31(4):286-90. doi: 10.1007/s00240-003-0337-y. Epub 2003 Jun 24.