• 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。

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal lithotripsy for distal ureteral calculi? Effect of stone size and multiplicity on success rates.

作者信息

Eden C G, Mark I R, Gupta R R, Eastman J, Shrotri N C, Tiptaft R C

机构信息

Lithotripter Centre, Department of Urology, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Endourol. 1998 Aug;12(4):307-12. doi: 10.1089/end.1998.12.307.

DOI:10.1089/end.1998.12.307
PMID:9726396
Abstract

Over a period of 57 months, 404 patients with distal ureteral calculi were treated by in situ SWL on a Storz Modulith SL 20 lithotripter and 163 by ureteroscopy (URS) and Swiss Lithoclast stone fragmentation. The case notes on these patients were reviewed for comparison of the initial stone number and individual length and for the calculation of the stone-free, treatment, retreatment, secondary procedure, and complication rates. Complete data were available on 447 patients. The median stone length was 7.0 (range 4-25) mm in the SWL group and 8.0 (range 5-13) mm in the URS group. The single-treatment stone-free rates for the SWL and URS groups were 74.8% and 89.7%, respectively, for single stones and 50.0% and 88.9%, respectively, for multiple (>1) stones. The mean treatment rates for the SWL and URS groups were 1.97 and 1.03, respectively, for single stones and 2.83 and 1.00, respectively, for multiple stones. The mean treatment rate for single stones subjected to SWL increased with increasing stone length (1.57 for stones <8 mm and 2.38 for stones >8 mm), whereas this was not the case for patients submitted to URS (1.20 and 1.27, respectively). The re-treatment rate for each group showed a reciprocal trend. Of the SWL group, 25.9% of the patients eventually required URS to render them stone-free. Nearly all (96%) of the patients undergoing SWL were treated as outpatients. The mean hospitalization in the URS group was 1.1 days. Three patients who underwent URS sustained a ureteral perforation, which was managed successfully by double-J stent insertion. The ideal primary treatment for small (<8 mm) distal ureteral calculi is in situ SWL, with URS plus Lithoclast fragmentation being reserved for failed SWL, single stones >8 mm in length, and multiple stones.

摘要

在57个月的时间里,404例远端输尿管结石患者在Storz Modulith SL 20型碎石机上接受了原位冲击波碎石术(SWL)治疗,163例患者接受了输尿管镜检查(URS)及瑞士碎石清石系统碎石治疗。回顾这些患者的病历,以比较初始结石数量、单个结石长度,并计算结石清除率、治疗率、再次治疗率、二次手术率及并发症发生率。447例患者有完整数据。SWL组结石中位长度为7.0(范围4 - 25)mm,URS组为8.0(范围5 - 13)mm。SWL组和URS组单颗结石单次治疗的结石清除率分别为74.8%和89.7%,多颗(>1颗)结石的清除率分别为50.0%和88.9%。SWL组和URS组单颗结石的平均治疗次数分别为1.97次和1.03次,多颗结石分别为2.83次和1.00次。SWL治疗的单颗结石平均治疗次数随结石长度增加而增加(<8 mm结石为1.57次,>8 mm结石为2.38次),而URS治疗的患者则不然(分别为1.20次和1.27次)。每组的再次治疗率呈现相反趋势。SWL组中,25.9%的患者最终需要接受URS治疗以清除结石。几乎所有(96%)接受SWL治疗的患者为门诊治疗。URS组的平均住院时间为1.1天。3例接受URS治疗的患者发生输尿管穿孔,通过置入双J支架成功处理。对于小(<8 mm)的远端输尿管结石,理想的初始治疗方法是原位SWL,URS联合碎石清石系统治疗则用于SWL失败、长度>8 mm的单颗结石及多颗结石。

相似文献

1
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.
2
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopy for the removal of small distal ureteral stones.体外冲击波碎石术与输尿管镜检查治疗远端输尿管小结石的比较
Urol Int. 2004;73(3):238-43. doi: 10.1159/000080834.
3
Treatment for extended-mid and distal ureteral stones: SWL or ureteroscopy? Results of a multicenter study.中段及下段输尿管结石的治疗:体外冲击波碎石术还是输尿管镜检查?一项多中心研究的结果
J Endourol. 1999 Dec;13(10):727-33. doi: 10.1089/end.1999.13.727.
4
Shock wave lithotripsy versus semirigid ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi (<20 mm): a comparative matched-pair study.冲击波碎石术与半硬性输尿管镜治疗近端输尿管结石(<20mm):一项配对对照研究
Urology. 2009 Jun;73(6):1184-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.12.064. Epub 2009 Apr 10.
5
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.
6
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.
7
Endoscopy vs. extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones: ten years' experience.输尿管下段结石治疗中内镜治疗与体外冲击波碎石术的比较:十年经验
J Endourol. 1999 Apr;13(3):161-4. doi: 10.1089/end.1999.13.161.
8
A prospective randomized comparison between shockwave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones <2 cm: a single center experience.冲击波碎石术与半硬性输尿管镜治疗小于2厘米上段输尿管结石的前瞻性随机对照研究:单中心经验
J Endourol. 2015 Jan;29(1):47-51. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0493.
9
Comparison of holmium laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in managing upper-ureteral stones.钬激光与气压弹道碎石术治疗输尿管上段结石的比较。
J Endourol. 2007 Dec;21(12):1425-7. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.0350.
10
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.

引用本文的文献

1
What is the preferred management of lower ureteral stones? SWL or URS - a critical evaluation with an emphasis on the changes in patient's quality of life.输尿管下段结石的首选治疗方法是什么?体外冲击波碎石术(SWL)还是输尿管镜检查(URS)——一项重点关注患者生活质量变化的批判性评估。
Urolithiasis. 2025 Feb 13;53(1):29. doi: 10.1007/s00240-025-01693-5.
2
A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes between dusting and fragmentation in retrograde intrarenal surgery.逆行性肾内手术中粉尘化与碎裂化处理效果的系统评价与荟萃分析。
BMC Urol. 2023 Jul 7;23(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12894-023-01283-w.
3
Effect of ureteral calculus in outpatients receiving semirigid ureteroscope laser lithotripsy.
输尿管结石对接受半硬性输尿管镜激光碎石术的门诊患者的影响。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Mar;99(10):e19324. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019324.
4
An overview of treatment options for urinary stones.尿路结石治疗选择概述。
Caspian J Intern Med. 2016 Winter;7(1):1-6.
5
Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.选择体外冲击波碎石术治疗尿路结石的理由。
Urolithiasis. 2015 Oct;43(5):387-96. doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0818-9. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
6
Management of lower ureteric stones: a prospective study.下段输尿管结石的管理:一项前瞻性研究。
Cent European J Urol. 2014;66(4):456-62. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2013.04.art19. Epub 2014 Jan 27.
7
Comparison of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripsy in the treatment of impacted ureteral stones: an analysis of risk factors.钬激光与气压弹道碎石术治疗嵌顿性输尿管结石的比较:危险因素分析
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014 Mar;30(3):153-8. doi: 10.1016/j.kjms.2013.08.007. Epub 2013 Sep 21.
8
Retrograde endoscopic lithotripsy using the innovative nanosecond electropulse method.使用创新的纳秒电脉冲方法进行逆行内镜碎石术。
Springerplus. 2013 Oct 17;2:538. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-538. eCollection 2013.
9
Value of focal applied energy quotient in treatment of ureteral lithiasis with shock waves.聚焦应用能量商在冲击波治疗输尿管结石中的价值
Urol Res. 2012 Aug;40(4):377-81. doi: 10.1007/s00240-011-0430-6. Epub 2011 Oct 15.
10
Does stone dimension affect the effectiveness of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in distal ureteral stones?结石大小会影响输尿管镜碎石术治疗输尿管下段结石的疗效吗?
Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(2):269-75. doi: 10.1007/s11255-007-9278-7.