目的:总结电磁式碎石机在X线定位下治疗上尿路结石的经验。方法:回顾性分析本院2018年1月28日至2019年4月2日在X线定位下行体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)的422例上尿路结石患者资料,并进行随访。结石直径6~9 mm 225例,10~20 mm 191例,>20 mm 6例。患者肾功能均正常,83.4%(352/422)有不同程度的肾积水。结果:碎石总有效率83.2%(351/422),其中碎石有效率肾结石为66.7%(22/33),输尿管上段结石为84.9%(181/213),输尿管中段结石为77.4%(24/31),输尿管下段结石为85.5%(124/145);6~9 mm结石为89.8%(202/225),10~20 mm结石为76.4%(146/191),>20 mm结石为50%(3/6)。结论:用X线定位行电磁式ESWL治疗输尿管上段及下段结石具有能量低、损伤小、易于定位、碎石颗粒细小易于排石、恢复快等优点,可减少术后发热、血尿、输尿管石街等并发症,目前仍为6~20 mm上尿路结石安全有效的治疗方法。 |
Objective:To summarize the experience of electromagnetic lithotripsy by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of ureteral calculi. Methods:422 patients with upper urinary calculi from January 2018 to April 2019 by ESWL were analyzed and followed-up. The stone diameters were as follows:6-9 mm in 225 cases; 10-20 mm in 191 cases; more than 20 mm in 6 cases. The renal function of the patients was normal, 83.4% patients (352/422) had different degrees hydronephrosis. Results:The total effective rate was 83.2% (351/422), the success rate of kidney stones was 66.7% (22/33), the upper ureter was 84.9% (181/213), the middle ureter was 77.4% (24/31), and the lower ureter was 85.52% (124/145). The effective rate of those with 6 to 9mm stones was 89.8% (202/225), and that of 10 to 20mm stones was 76.4% (146/191), and >20 mm stones was 50% (3/6). Conclusion:Our study shows that the electromagnetic shock wave lithotripsy is a safe and effective method of lithotripsy. Electromagnetic lithotripsy has higher efficacy in upper and lower ureter calculi. At present, it could be a preferred treatment for upper urinary calculi with diameters between 6 to 20 mm. |
[1] 米华,邓耀良.中国尿石症的流行病学特征[J].中华泌尿外科杂志,2003,24(10):715-716.
[2] 张朋,肖芝松.维生素D受体基因多态性在泌尿系结石中的研究进展[J].中华泌尿外科杂志,2016,37(10):797-800.
[3] 徐汉军,刘春林,单勇,等.组合式输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术治疗肾结石术后结石残留的原因分析[J].现代医学,2016,44(6):846-848.
[4] 蔡昌存.体外冲击波碎石机的发展和现况[J].医疗装备,2008,21(10):24-25.
[5] 姚史武,李汉荣,黄典东,等.电磁式体外冲击波碎石的应用体会和输尿管镜碎石治疗输尿管结石的差别[J].岭南现代临床外科,2018,18(3):327-330.
[6] OSMAN M M,ALFANO Y,KAMP S,et al.5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy[J].Eur Urol,2005,47(6):860-864.
[7] WIESENTHAL J D,GHICULETE D,RAY A A,et al.A clinical nomogram to predict the successful shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral calculi[J].J Urol,2011,186(2):556-562.
[8] SKOLARIKOS A,GRIVAS N,KALLIDONIS P,et al.The efficacy of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in improving stone-free rate and stone expulsion time,after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper urinary stones:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Urology,2015,86(6):1057-1064.
[9] LAWLER A C,GHIRALDI E M,TONG C,et al.Extracorporeal shock wave therapy:current perspectives and future directions[J].Curr Urol Rep,2017,18(4):25.
[10] ELMANSY H E,LINGEMAN J E.Recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies:a systematic review update[J].Int J Surg,2016,36(Pt D):676-680.
[11] ABE T,AKAKURA K,KAWAGUCHI M,et al.Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones:a large-scale study at a single institution[J].J Endourol,2005,19(7):768-773.
[12] TARAWNEH E,AWAD Z,HANI A,et al.Factors affecting urinary calculi treatment by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy[J].Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl,2010,21(4):660-665.
[13] 谢凯,杨为民,杨欢,等.X线定位体外冲击波碎石术23年15 019例疗效观察[J].中华泌尿外科杂志,2012,33(8):581-583. |
