• 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

对于下盏结石,应在何时进行冲击波碎石术?

When should one perform shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones?

作者信息

Ilker Y, Tarcan T, Akdas A

机构信息

Department of Urology, Marmara University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.

出版信息

J Endourol. 1995 Dec;9(6):439-41. doi: 10.1089/end.1995.9.439.

DOI:10.1089/end.1995.9.439
PMID:8775070
Abstract

Extracorporal shockwave lithotripsy of lower caliceal stones is often unrewarding because of the difficulty of passing stone fragments. We report our results in SWL of lower pole stones in 219 patients and compare them with the results of SWL of middle (82 patients) and upper pole (85 patients) stones. The stone-free rate of SWL monotherapy was found to be 59%, 77%, and 64% in lower, middle, and upper caliceal stones, respectively. In lower pole stones, SWL was unsuccessful in 41% of the patients, of whom 9% had minimal residual asymptomatic stones (less than 4 mm in greatest diameter). In comparison with the results of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCN) of lower pole urolithiasis in the literature, SWL was unsuccessful in large stones, with stone-free rates of 13% and 0 when the stone size was 3 to 4.9 cm2 and > 5 cm2, respectively. A stone-free rate of 82% when the stone burden was < 1 cm2 is similar to the PCN results of other centers, suggesting that SWL may be the first choice of treatment in lower pole stones of this size. We achieved a stone-free rate of 59% when the stone size was between 1 and 3 cm2, which is lower than the stone-free rates of PCN in the literature. In spite of its lower stone-free rates, SWL, with its lower morbidity, may still be considered an acceptable treatment modality in this range of moderate stone burden, especially when there is a patient desire for conservative treatment.

摘要

由于结石碎片排出困难,下盏结石的体外冲击波碎石术往往效果不佳。我们报告了219例下极结石患者体外冲击波碎石术的结果,并将其与82例中极结石和85例上极结石患者的体外冲击波碎石术结果进行比较。结果发现,下盏、中盏和上盏结石体外冲击波碎石术单一疗法的无石率分别为59%、77%和64%。在下极结石患者中,41%的患者体外冲击波碎石术失败,其中9%有少量残余无症状结石(最大直径小于4mm)。与文献中报道的下极尿路结石经皮肾镜取石术(PCN)的结果相比,体外冲击波碎石术对大结石效果不佳,结石大小为3至4.9cm²和>5cm²时,无石率分别为13%和0。结石负荷<1cm²时无石率为82%,与其他中心的经皮肾镜取石术结果相似,这表明体外冲击波碎石术可能是这种大小下极结石的首选治疗方法。结石大小在1至3cm²之间时,我们的无石率为59%,低于文献中经皮肾镜取石术的无石率。尽管无石率较低,但体外冲击波碎石术发病率较低,在这种中等结石负荷范围内仍可被视为一种可接受的治疗方式,尤其是当患者希望采用保守治疗时。

相似文献

1
When should one perform shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones?对于下盏结石,应在何时进行冲击波碎石术?
J Endourol. 1995 Dec;9(6):439-41. doi: 10.1089/end.1995.9.439.
2
The impact of caliceal pelvic anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric lower pole stones.肾盂肾盏解剖结构对小儿下极结石冲击波碎石术后结石清除的影响。
J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):1082-6. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000135670.83076.5c.
3
The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi.体外冲击波碎石术治疗孤立性下盏结石与孤立性中、上盏结石的疗效比较。
J Urol. 2001 Dec;166(6):2081-4; discussion 2085. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65509-7.
4
Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower caliceal stones in children compared with stones in other renal locations.与其他肾部位置的结石相比,体外冲击波碎石术治疗儿童孤立性下盏结石的疗效。
Urology. 2006 Jan;67(1):170-4; discussion 174-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.07.061.
5
Effectiveness of SWL for lower-pole caliceal nephrolithiasis: evaluation of 452 cases.
J Endourol. 1997 Oct;11(5):305-7. doi: 10.1089/end.1997.11.305.
6
Effect of potassium citrate therapy on stone recurrence and residual fragments after shockwave lithotripsy in lower caliceal calcium oxalate urolithiasis: a randomized controlled trial.枸橼酸钾疗法对下盏草酸钙尿路结石冲击波碎石术后结石复发及残余碎片的影响:一项随机对照试验
J Endourol. 2002 Apr;16(3):149-52. doi: 10.1089/089277902753716098.
7
Pediatric extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: its efficiency at various locations in the upper tract.小儿体外冲击波碎石术:其在上尿路不同部位的疗效
J Endourol. 2009 Feb;23(2):229-35. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0133.
8
Comparative results of shockwave lithotripsy for renal calculi in upper, middle, and lower calices.冲击波碎石术治疗肾上、中、下盏肾结石的对比结果。
J Endourol. 2007 Sep;21(9):951-6. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.0275.
9
Is stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy in patients with solitary upper-caliceal stone influenced by anatomic differences in the pelvicaliceal system?孤立性上肾盏结石患者冲击波碎石术后的结石清除情况是否受肾盂肾盏系统解剖差异的影响?
J Endourol. 2007 Jan;21(1):18-22. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.0156.
10
A Prospective Evaluation of High-Resolution CT Parameters in Predicting Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy Success for Upper Urinary Tract Calculi.高分辨率CT参数预测上尿路结石体外冲击波碎石术成功率的前瞻性评估
J Endourol. 2016 Nov;30(11):1227-1232. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0364. Epub 2016 Oct 3.

引用本文的文献

1
Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm.比较冲击波碎石术和软性输尿管肾镜术治疗小于1厘米的下极结石的前瞻性随机试验。
Urolithiasis. 2014 Apr;42(2):127-31. doi: 10.1007/s00240-013-0618-z. Epub 2013 Nov 13.
2
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole calculi smaller than one centimeter.体外冲击波碎石术治疗直径小于1厘米的下极结石。
Indian J Urol. 2008 Oct;24(4):517-20. doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.44260.